Follow the Leader

I think most of us have been waiting and watching for Greece to fall. I admit to being gullible from time to time, just like Charlie Brown I fall for the media blowing up an issue into a catastrophe. But on Greece and the Euro, I feel confidant there is a real story, not just media hype. For one thing, Flag has mostly agreed it is a big deal. And then we are told about all the other countries near default. But first, a close look at Greece.

Will Greece Default on March 20 ?

Felix Salmon is adamant that we’ve got the actual date for the Greek default:

But at least we have a date, now. Greece will officially default on March 20.

I find it very hard to fault his logic as well.

As I pointed out yesterday the actual haircut that the private sector holders of the debt are being asked to take is a lot higher than the 50% that is generally being bandied around. It’s a lot more like 70%.

Well, they are no Black Flag, but I think Forbes is somewhat credible. I by no means think they have all the answers. I think enough credit may not be given to the leaders of France, Germany and the Euro that have cheated death and won more times than can be explained. But then, as in with all forms of gambling, the “house” does have some advantages, in this case, the makers of the rules may not be as bound by them as the rest of us.(1)

It seems to me they are juggling, catching one pin just before it hits the ground and tossing it back into the air. Another “pin”.

Euro zone unemployment reaches near 15-year high

(Reuters) – Unemployment in the euro zone reached its highest level in almost 15 years in February, with more than 17 million people out of work, and economists said they expected job office queues to grow even longer later this year.

Joblessness in the 17-nation currency zone rose to 10.8 percent – in line with a Reuters poll of economists – and 0.1 points worse than in January, Eurostat said on Monday.

Economists are divided over the wisdom of European governments’ drive to bring down fiscal deficits so aggressively as economic troubles hit tax revenues, consumers’ spending power and business confidence which collapsed late last year.

February’s unemployment level – last hit in June 1997 – marked the 10th straight monthly rise and contrasts sharply with the United States where the economy has been adding jobs since late last year. (2)

Ireland.

Debt-mired Ireland is facing a revolt over its new property tax.

The government said less than half of the country’s 1.6 million households paid the charge by Saturday’s deadline to avoid penalties. And about 5,000 marched in protest against the annual conference of Prime Minister Enda Kenny’s Fine Gael party.

Emotions ran raw as police backed by officers on horseback stopped demonstrators from entering the Dublin Convention Centre. Many protesters booed and heckled passers-by who were wearing Fine Gael conference passes, some screaming vulgar insults in their faces.

Protesters jostled with police as they tried to block the way of Fine Gael activists using a back entrance. One man mistakenly identified as the government minister responsible for collecting the tax had to be rescued by police from an angry scrum.

Kenny said his government had no choice, but to impose the new charge as part of the nation’s efforts to emerge from an international bailout. Ireland already has endured five emergency budgets in four years and expects to face at least four more years of austerity.(3)

AP

Phyllis O’Toole joins an estimated 5,000…

Now as to the little I know (or think I know), we put around 800 Billion into TARP, passed under Bush and administered by Obama. About half of that went to foreign banks. We are also invested in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Again, I think I know that if something hurts the Euro, like one of its nations defaulting, it will hurt the US. And it’s just too damned easy to find others who think similar thoughts..

“Somewhere down the line we will have a massive wealth destruction that usually happens either through very high inflation or through social unrest or through war or credit market collapse,” he said. “Maybe all of it will happen, but at different times.“(4)

I have also said the US is at a tipping point, with 48.5% getting some form of government support. I think the government like keeping a dependent group. I think once it’s large enough, we may never move back to a fiscally responsible nation, and will likely fail sometime in the future. It’s pretty simple, why would anyone work if they can be paid to sit at home and do nothing? Why work hard if the government takes any “extra” you produce and gives it to people who sit at home and watch TV? When the workers are outnumbered by the non-workers who like living off the dole, all they have to do is keep voting for politicians that will continue to reward them. Funny thought, our best hope may be the non-workers might be too lazy to vote. But I’m sure the power that be will “fix” any problems like that, provide cell phones that allow you to text in your vote. Hey, it’s good for the environment. What’s our carbon footprint for driving to the polls every two years?

Am I wrong? Maybe overstating things? So how’s that socialism working out in Europe?

Voters may topple eurozone rescue plans

Rick Moran

Voters in Greece, Spain, and Portugal may hold the fate of the EU in their hands.

Patience with the largest budget cuts in memory in those three countries is wearing thin and there are indications that, given the opportunity, the electorates might force politicians to break their bail out agreements with the EU.

An unexpectedly broad general strike in Spain on Thursday and mounting opposition to Prime Minister Mario Monti in Italy are among indicators that resistance is growing in a region at the center of concerns about a resurgence of the euro zone debt crisis.

Portugal remains very subdued for the moment and even Greece, scene of repeated violent street protests, has quietened recently. But there are signals that political leaders will soon be directly in the firing line across Europe, especially if more cuts are required to reduce sovereign debt.

The atmosphere seems a combination of two opposite tendencies – acceptance of the message that deep cuts are the only way to save their countries from economic catastrophe, and a mounting feeling that greater pain cannot be borne by populations suffering deprivation and misery.

The problem for politicians like Monti and Spain’s Mariano Rajoy is that the very austerity measures imposed to cut debt under pressure from euro zone leaders could deepen recession and create a need for even more severe cuts.

There may only be a few more months left for reforms to start producing benefits before populations either retaliate in electoral tests or take to the streets in increasing numbers.

There is great resentment, not only among left wing parties, but even conservative and center right parties, at the depth of budget cuts and the pain caused by years of recession/depression. More than 50% of Greek youth are unemployed. Similar numbers can be found in Spain and Portugal.

There is also a huge distrust of the IMF and the EU leadership in Brussels. Part of that is class based, but it is also a realization that Germany and other core countries in the EU are the beneficiaries of the austerity measures being implemented, and not the citizens of the countries affected. It is their banks who are being kept afloat, their economies that are being rescued as a result of the austerity-caused bail outs.

Even if those three countries emerge from near insolvency, their relationship with the rest of the EU may be permanently damaged. This does not bode well for the future of a united Europe.(5)

Spain

Spain is in a recession, though only down an estimated 1.7% in 2012, if things go well. Unemployment is at 23%, which is higher than Greece for the latest Greek data that I can find. But more than half of young Spaniards (over 51%) are out of work, creating a lost generation that has been hardest hit by Spain’s economic woes. The total number of unemployed has climbed above five million, and Spanish under-25 unemployment has nearly tripled, from 18% just four years ago.

” ‘This is the least hopeful and best educated generation in Spain,’ said Ignacio Escolar, author of the country’s most popular political blog and former editor of the newspaper Publico. ‘And it’s like a national defeat that they have to travel abroad to find work.’ Young Spaniards are now living in the family home longer than ever before, pushing the average age of independence from their parents to well into their thirties.” (The Telegraph)

Unions called a general strike on Thursday as the recently elected Spanish government delivered its new austerity budget. While the protests were mostly peaceful, the pictures we see are of youth in partial riot mode. It is eerily similar to the onset of riots in Greece just a few years ago – except that unemployment is higher than when the Greek crisis started. And while Spanish leaders will protest that Spain is not Greece, there are striking similarities .(6)

Obama keeps saying the rich need to pay their “fair share” and demands a tax increase on the wealthy. I remember reading the UK passed such a tax increase last year, and revenue dropped. I think Obama even admitted during the 2007 campaign that raising taxes can reduce revenue, and then started in on “fairness”. If we want to reduce our deficit and balance a budget, why refuse to act in a proven, fiscally sound manner? The US is not Europe. OK, then how about looking at individual states? Six states tried Obama’s “fair”plan and raise taxes on the wealthy. Care to guess the result?(7)

Is there any answer? Is there hope that’s real, not just a slogan? JAC posted an interesting link (8)

Over the past two decades, poorer nations have dismantled command-and-control methods and given markets greater latitude. Economic growth, not redistribution, has been the surest cure for poverty, and economic freedom has been the key that unlocked the riddle of economic growth.

Progress can often be defined as the stuff that happens while humanity is preoccupied with everything that is going wrong. On the surface, the first decade of the 21st century looks like an ugly parade of terrorism, war and economic convulsion. But in one important sense it stands as possibly the greatest decade in human history. And that’s no accident.

Among the most vicious enemies of human welfare is poverty. In a world plagued with limited resources, bad governments and unsound economic policies, it often appears to be an inescapable scourge. Most people paid no attention in 2000 when the United Nations proclaimed the goal of halving the number of earth’s inhabitants living in extreme poverty by 2015, compared to 1990.

But way ahead of schedule, the target has already been hit. For the first time since it began tracking, says a new World Bank report, “the data indicate a decline in both the poverty rate and the number of poor in all six regions of the developing world.”

In 1981, 70 percent of those in the developing world subsisted on the equivalent of less than $2 a day, and 42 percent had to manage with less than $1 a day. Today, 43 percent are below $2 a day and 14 percent below $1.

“Poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in history: Never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period of time,” write Brookings Institution researchers Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz.

Just as important as the extent of the improvement is the location: everywhere. In the past there has been improvement in a few countries or a continent. Not this time.

A sad note to end on, more riots in Greece. A 77 yr. old man kills himself near parliament to protest the severe cuts imposed by the government. He had worked and paid in for 35 years and stated he did not want to have to feed himself from the garbage.(9) This kind of event provokes an emotional reaction in many, someone HAS to be blamed. But who? They have borrowed more than they can reasonably repay. They refuse to balance their budgets, spending more than they take in.

I think the blame goes to many, the unions, the retired, the non-working, the entire entitlement society. And then there is/was the politicians that promised them they could have increases in their retirement benefits, in their union benefits, free Viagra with their health insurance. And these politicians have all done the same, they have agreed to all these spending increases and borrowed against future earnings. Pass the buck, kick the can down the road, etc.. knowing they would safely be out of office when the bill comes due. I know I do not envy those in office today, bound by promises somebody else made and facing reality, that no one will continue giving them money that all signs show will never be repaid. So the world will sit back and watch as the birthplace of democracy commits suicide.

Can any good come from this? Will the US and the rest of the world learn from this example? It doesn’t seem so to me. Obama’s last budget shows interest payments will exceed defense spending in 2019. (10) All the controversy over was he a Muslim or socialist is funny now that’s its obvious, he’s Greek. So I must think everyone who still supports Obama want’s to follow Greece’s example.

[..] every time a bank merger is consummated, it turns out that the losses of the weaker banks are far greater than was previously assumed (or rather, admitted to). As a result, Spain’s deposit guarantee fund (DGF) has run out of money.

The solution to this particular problem the authorities have hit upon is comparable to the most recent exercises in financial creativity in Greece (it is the extent of creativity that is comparable). The government doesn’t want to contribute anything to the fund in order to be able to meet its deficit target, or rather, not miss it too badly. So the banks are going to lend the fund €24 billion, with their individual contributions graded by their market share (initially, €12 billion will be disbursed).

If you’re still with us, the short version is that the banks are going to lend the fund that is supposed to bail out the banks the money to bail them out. As Exane’s bank analyst Santiago Lopez Diaz notes, although the loan is a true contingent liability, it won’t (at least at first) be influencing earnings statements – except perhaps positively, as the banks will book interest on it! As he notes, this is simply astounding financial alchemy.

The Spanish banks are lending their own government the money it needs to bail out… the Spanish banks. That may seem absurd at first glance, but wait till you see where those banks get the money to lend to their own government. From earlier in the same article (which seems to miss this point a bit):

Spain’s banking system continues to make waves and unwelcome headlines. On Friday it became known that the banks have borrowed a record €316.3 billion from the ECB as of March, up from €169.8 billion in February – 28% of the gross borrowings of all banks in the euro area (in terms of borrowings from the ECB, it represent an even bigger percentage). This means Spain’s banks have little to no access to the interbank market or other private funding and have evidently made maximum use of the second LTRO.

Oh lordy. The Spanish sovereign is being propped up by its own defunct banks. Which get the money to do the propping up from the ECB (re: Germany). That’ll go over well in Berlin once it’s fully understood.

THis is from one of my many emails from those who follow the economy. This covers the value of the dollar.

The disaster in Europe should be pushing the U.S. dollar up more than it is. But it’s not, and that has me deeply worried …

Worried that the next leg of the dollar’s decline may be right around the corner … worried that the loss of the dollar’s reserve-currency status could occur more quickly than even I had expected … and worried that the “X&@!” may soon hit the fan, across the entire globe.

Don’t get me wrong. The dollar may indeed soon rally a tad more. Which is what I expected for this part of the year, as Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis continues nearly unabated.

But the pathetic action in the dollar so far is very telling. Since the first of the year …

The dollar has lost 1.6% against the Aussie dollar, and 5.5% against the New Zealand dollar.

In the non-euro countries of Europe, the dollar has lost 1.3% against the Swedish krona … 3.2% against Norway’s krone … 1.9% against the Swiss franc … 6.4% against Hungary’s forint … and a whopping 7.2% against Poland’s zloty.

Against the Russian ruble, the greenback has shed a whopping 7.9%!

In South America, the dollar is not faring well, either. It’s lost 5.5% against Mexico’s peso and an amazing 8.6% against Columbia’s peso.

And in Asia, the dollar has lost 3.3% against India’s rupee … 3.8% against Malaysia’s ringgit … 3.7% against the Singapore dollar … 2.9% against the Philippine peso … and 2.5% against Taiwan’s dollar.

All told, against the euro — despite the European Central Bank’s (ECB) massive money-printing — the dollar has LOST 0.9% of its value!

Moreover, consider this: Measured by the widely monitored U.S. Dollar Index — the greenback is a mere 10.7% above its all-time record low of 70.7 made in March 2008.

Imagine that. It’s as if the Dow Industrials — whose March 2009 bear market closing low was 7,033.62 — were to have never bounced higher than 7,786 since then.

I repeat: At a time when the dollar should be staging a decent (although temporary) rally due to Europe’s MASSIVE economic and sovereign debt problems …

So am I. Odds are that it’s probably coming our way a lot sooner than even I expect.

For one thing, no matter how much money the ECB prints for Europe, it’s going to need help from Ben Bernanke and our Fed. Perhaps the Fed will print money and lend it to the ECB. Perhaps there will be currency swaps, where the Fed prints money and swaps it for euros with the ECB.

No matter what, Europe’s problem is not just the ECB’s. You can rest assured that as Spain and Italy start to buckle — which they are now doing — the Fed will be in there, helping out the ECB.

This means, of course, that both the euro and the dollar are going to suffer together.

Moreover, signs are coming to light that the U.S. economic recovery over the past few years has been nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Stocks are starting to wobble … real estate prices are on the verge of falling again … and the public isn’t buying the headline unemployment figures any more. The 8.2% official unemployment number is hogwash. The true unemployment figure is over 35% — and increasingly more and more people and investors realize it.

Plus, it’s an election year. And no way, no how is the Fed going to let the economy or the markets completely fall apart this year. Bernanke will print money at the drop of a hat.

More important as far as I’m concerned is …

SECOND, the very disturbing trend I’ve seen over the last month. It seems that my forecast that Washington and Beijing are in cahoots with each other to further devalue the U.S. dollar is coming to pass.

In just the past month, Beijing has taken one step after another to boost the value of its yuan and to internationalize it — all at the expense of the dollar — without so much as a peep out of Washington.

Beijing has …

Allowed JPMorgan to promote and make a market in yuan-based money-market funds in Hong Kong. To the best of my knowledge, the first foreign investment bank allowed to do so.

So Moore has at least one fan, how nice. Interesting article, not a surprise coming from New York state. Seems they need to have an election and dump that Mayor. The UN, have a plan which should scare the crap out of all of us. Here’s an article that covers it.

First off, I believe the Westchester County Executive abandoned the municipality’s involvement/membership in ICLEI, so it kind of is a moot point.

Secondly, I will try to do some more research on ICLEI and these initiatives, but at first blush, and from what I do know, I just don’t think this is as sinister as those on the far right are trying to make it.

“The true unemployment figure is over 35% — and increasingly more and more people and investors realize it.”

The TRUE unemployment number is exactly as it is reported. These people who claim some “REAL” number that differs from the “official” number have no basis in factual comparison. They know it but still use it in their “the Wolf is coming” scenarios.

So when I see statements like that it harms the credibility and believability of the rest of the article. Even though the rest may in fact be real and likely.

One more thing. The LEFT has a legitimate gripe with respect to all the complaining about the REAL unemployment numbers. Why wasn’t the RIGHT claiming the numbers are phony during Reagan, Bush and Bush II?

TRUTH: NOBODY knows the EXACT number of unemployed people in this country who would actually go to work today if they could find a job. NOBODY.

Great video V.H.!!! Thinking about having my kids watch it after all the earth day crap on the kids channels yesterday. This is most of the Reason article JAC posted a few weeks back.

Among the most vicious enemies of human welfare is poverty. In a world plagued with limited resources, bad governments and unsound economic policies, it often appears to be an inescapable scourge. Most people paid no attention in 2000 when the United Nations proclaimed the goal of halving the number of earth’s inhabitants living in extreme poverty by 2015, compared to 1990.

But way ahead of schedule, the target has already been hit. For the first time since it began tracking, says a new World Bank report, “the data indicate a decline in both the poverty rate and the number of poor in all six regions of the developing world.”

In 1981, 70 percent of those in the developing world subsisted on the equivalent of less than $2 a day, and 42 percent had to manage with less than $1 a day. Today, 43 percent are below $2 a day and 14 percent below $1.

“Poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in history: Never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period of time,” write Brookings Institution researchers Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz.

Just as important as the extent of the improvement is the location: everywhere. In the past there has been improvement in a few countries or a continent. Not this time.

China has continued the rapid upward climb it began three decades ago. India, long a laggard, has shaken off its torpor. Latin America has made sharp inroads against poverty. “For the first time since 1981,” says the World Bank, “we have seen less than half the population of sub-Saharan Africa living below $1.25 a day.”

The start of most global trends is hard to pinpoint. This one, however, had its big bang in the early 1970s, in Chile. After a socialist government brought on economic chaos, the military seized power in a bloody coup and soon embarked on a program of drastic reform — privatizing state enterprises, fighting inflation, opening up foreign trade and investment and unshackling markets.

It was the formula offered by economists associated with the University of Chicago, notably Milton Friedman, and it turned Chile into a rare Latin American success. In time, it also facilitated a return to democracy. Chile was proof that freeing markets and curbing state control could generate broad-based prosperity, which socialist policies could only promise.

If that experiment weren’t sufficient, it got another try on a much bigger scale when China’s Deng Xiaoping abandoned the disastrous policies of Mao Zedong and veered onto the capitalist road. The result was an economic miracle yielding growth rates that averaged 10 percent per year.

The formula was too effective to be ignored. Over the past two decades, poorer nations have dismantled command-and-control methods and given markets greater latitude. Economic growth, not redistribution, has been the surest cure for poverty, and economic freedom has been the key that unlocked the riddle of economic growth.

Over the past 30 years, notes the libertarian Cato Institute in the latest edition of its “Economic Freedom of the World,” the average country’s economic freedom score has risen from 5.53 (on a 10 scale) to 6.64 — a significant improvement that has paid off in higher growth and earnings. The evidence indicates a reliable pattern: the freer the economy the faster the growth.

“Nations in the top quartile of economic freedom had an average per-capita GDP of $31,501 in 2009, compared to $4,545 for those nations in the bottom quartile,” says Cato. The rate of extreme poverty is 2.7 percent in the top quartile and 41 percent in the bottom one.

Among many people a generation ago — and among a few today — free markets and private property were seen as the cause of poverty. But the number of adherents has dwindled in the face of repeated refutation.

The latest cover story in The Economist magazine is: “Cuba hurtles toward capitalism.” Cuba! Even communists eventually have to make peace with reality.

Hello y’all.
The first thing I need to get out of the way is to say that I need to apologize to anyone on here that I have offended with any language I have used or nasty things I may have said in the past.
I have recently recomitted myself to God and I am trying to get back to a better relationship with him. I had become increasingly backslidden and bitter over my physical and financial problems the past few years, and it was beginning to affect my marriage and all other relationships.
I shudder to think of how I have treated my wife and my two precious boys during this time. I actually could not have a better family than the one I do. A have a wife who loves me without condition, and two boys who show every day what good christians should act like, instead of like I personally acted like when I was their age.
As a matter of fact, I have been caught up in my own misery and problems here lately that I was starting to affect them in ways that quite frankly make me ashamed. I have treated my wife at times as if I WANTED her to leave. And for that she had done absolutely NOTHING. I had just become so very bitterr and angry at my situation that I could not see what I was doing. To myself as well as them.
And it was also starting to show in public. No, I retract that. It had BEEN showing for a while.
This may not seem like a big thing to some of you, especially since you don’t really know me. And you may not think that getting closer to God when you may or may not believe in him may not seem like a big thing to you. But it was important to me to come on here and apologize for myself. Knowing some of the things I have said on here in the past. God is important to me. He is an important part of my life that I have pushed away for FAR too long. And he is an important part of the foundation of this Nation, which is the reason for a lot of our problems AS a nation, since we are moving away from being a Christian nation and becoming a more secular one.

I do not, however, apologize for my political views or the things I have said about our President OR the Government. They are destroying the very fabric and foundations of our country a little more every day. I know some here don’t believe that and are happy with the direction we are turning. I AM NOT. I want my freedom and liberty intact. I want my Constitution reinstated and enforced. I want my freedom of religion restored. I want us moved back towards being a Christian and Godly Nation.
And you may say, “they haven’t been taken away”. I beg to differ with you there. This government is becoming more intrusive into our daily lives every day. I am seeing and reading every day where they are introducing new laws to intrude and excusing it by saying that it is something that MUST be done, and that it’s NECCESSARY. This is just so much garbage. It’s all about power and control. We cannot be allowed to actually think for ourselves. We might make decisions that will affect their power over us. We might actually vote them OUT! We might begin to have a clue what they are doing to socialize and manipulate us.

Some of us already do. But it is far too few. There are not enough of us thinking for ourselves. Trust me. I know this from not only the news, but simply listening to people around me. There are not near enough folks thinking out there, including some I never would have suspected. Every time you allow these idiots to take just a little of your freedom away, you are empowering them to try to take more, and they most likely will succeed. We as a people and a nation are becoming inured to what is happening. I cry for what The United States of America is becoming. We need to turn around before it’s to late.

Soon we will look up and our country will be gone, or at least it will be too late to change it. We need to start now, in this election cycle. If it doesn’t work then, we need to make more changes the next election. And the next. Until those fools in Washington begin to see that we have had enough. That “WE THE PEOPLE” are in charge, not them.

Thank you JAC. As I said, it may not be important to others on this site that I did this. But it WAS important to me. I owe lots of folks apologies for my behavior the past few.

Speaking of baseball. My son is doing great and having a good season personally. He is only 2-6 as a pitcher but only has a 1.6 ERA. That should tell you something about how good his high school team is. He has pitched 2 complete games. One a shut out. But that is the kind of performance he has to have to win. But he has also been asked to be on a travel ball team that is sponsored by pro baseball players (farm team). They will be playing on college campuses and farm league stadums and there will be college and pro scouts watching them. It is an unbelieveable opportunity that just seemed to fall in his lap. But it did because he is not only a good ball player but he is also a good kid. He deserved for something like that to happen to him after the hardship he has been going through with our finances. We could not have afforded to have bought this opportunity and it was given to him.

I agree that our nation is in the young peoples hands. But with kids like mine and yours I have hope that they will pick up the ball and run with it. They are not all as stupid as the media would like for us to believe. A lot of them are in fact smarter then the older ones. But they don’t even KNOW about the true freedom and liberty that even WE experienced as youngsters. They don’t learn REAL History anymore. They learn mostly a revisionist version. Real freedom and liberty is something even I have never really witnessed.

I know that I am disabled and more or less dependent on others for some things. But I swear before God, that I would give it up in a second if this country would just stop and turn around before we fall off that cliff. I am strong. I WOULD make it. And my family with me.

It is not only a big deal -it isn’t all that easy to do-but it is well worth it. Nice testimony, by the way! This seems to demand some music-this may seem a strange pick but somehow it seems appropriate 🙂

Thanks V.H.. My apology was neccessary for ME. It is a PART of my making things right. I don’t want anyone out there to misunderstand that the way I was behaving was the way ALL Christians are. It was part of my problem with MYSELF and my physical and mental problems. And yes I do mean Mental also. I was literally going bananas. And all of it was a result of my separation from God. It feels good to be back in sinc.

Dang, Esom! Say it ain’t so, I happened to enjoy your rants. They helped relieve the pressure in my brain…You’re doing a fine job digging yourself out..remember, God doesn’t dish out more than you can handle 😉

Hey Anita. The rants will continue some, just not the nastyness and language I have used. As I said. I’m not about to apologize for my politics. I still think Obama is a boil on the behind of the nation that needs to be lanced in November.

And I also agree with people like Gman, who believe that if we aren’t lucky Obama and tha Government will find a way to suspend or nullify the election if it begins to look like they will lose. And in that case there’s going to be blood in the streets. Some of us have HAD IT! We are sick of what our government is doing and we ain’t a gonna put up with much more.

What makes me the most angry of all, and it’s a riteous anger, is the war on Christianity. Too many have decided that it is ok to put down christians and christianity. But it is not ok to offend anyone else. This is insanity. This nation was founded on God and Christian principles. And if others don’t believe that, well you have the full right to be wrong all you want. I am not responsible for whether or not you believe in God. Only youu can make that decision. But I don’t have to sit on my hands and watch Secularism take over waht was once a great Nation and deastroy it with “Social Justice” either. That, hoss, is going to get you a fight you won’t ever forget!

My city must be broke as hell! My persnickity neighbor called the cops on me because one of my dogs decided to relieve herself in their yard. So I took my ticket to the prosecutor today and the fine was $300! FOR DOGSHIT!. Luckily I know people in high places (went to school with the dog catcher) and got off with just a $50 fine. 🙂

Glad to hear that your making changes within yourself for the better 🙂 Although I thought you were fine the way you were, changes for the good are always great.

The vast majority of the American people are totally blind to what is really going on. THey are the sheeple who believe the government and the MSM and what they have to say. At some point, it will suck to be them. Keep your powder dry my friend!

Esom, peace with yourself, whether through faith or other means, is a good thing. Also, I have always been a fan of reasoned and calm speech in debate. It makes for more productive debate, as people do not get so emotionally wrapped up that they stop listening, or worse, stop thinking. A soft answer turns away wrath. It also makes the stronger language, when it is truly called for, much more effective. A person who never curses or shows anger growing passionate commands more notice than a person who is always flying off the handle about everything.

It is funny, however, while I generally come down in support of religion, I was doing some reading on the pledge of allegience today. Could be an interesting debate one day soon. The war on Christianity is real, but you need to be careful to choose your battles, some things that are considered a war on Chrisitanity and the founding of the country actually is not. More of that objective, reasoned debate stuff.

All that aside, I appreciate your apology, I have had to do those myself (found out I cannot let myself blog drunk, I get belligerent and argumentative, mean, etc.). I often get similar responses from people when I apologize, along the lines of people saying they applauded my more aggressive speech, but it is not consistent with my own goals, so I apologize just the same when I slip. And I applud you for your apology as well.
Cheers
Jon

Greetings Jon. The peace I Have made I guess is with myself. But it is also peace with my God, who I believe in with all my heart. I could not make peace with myself without him.

But reading above, there is one thing I will not do. That is be careful choosing my battles when it comes to defending the fact of our nation being founded with Christian beliefs. This is something that I can prove because, given time, I can come up with a lot of proof to back my side of the arguement. People can argue it, but they are wrong.

Yeah, I have folks (Anita) who appreciate my aggresive speech too. Most of it is not really rants, but some of it was. The Government has been making me more and more angry the last few years, it has become harder and harder to contain. It seems to me they are just bent on wiping our Constitutional Republic out and replacing it with a Democracy that is far more Socialist than Democratic. They want it to be democratic as long as you agree with THEM but more of a Dictatorship if you don’t.

But anyway, here’s to you and yours and I hope this finds you in good spirits. God Bless.

Not saying you should compromise on the founding of the nation. I am saying that you should watch what battles you fight, make sure you are on the right, and accurate, side. For instance, the addition of “under God” to the pledge was done in the 1950’s, and it was done as a means of making a political statement separating us from the communist countries who had a state religion of atheism. It has nothing to do with the founding or our roots. The SCOTUS decision to make it so that people were not compelled to say the pledge was decided before that time, in the 1940s, in response to a suit by the Jehova’s Witness protestant sect that believe the flag is a form of idolatry and that a pledge to it was a form of worship. A valid claim by a Christian group that forced recital is a violation of the First Amendment. Now, the founding of the country was heavily influenced and populated by Christians and Christianity. That is undeniable. In fact, there is much disinformation being sown about it, such as claims of atheism or deism for Jefferson and other founders. Jefferson researched and studied all religions, and found that the best moral code was in Christianity, in the teachings of Jesus. He was by no means a deist. In fact, the basis for claims of deism is that he was an open-minded and learned Christian that was not judgemental or biggoted towards other faiths. The very thing anti-christians claim Christians should be doing is what Jefferson did, yet they try to claim that it made him not a Christian? That is circular logic. That is the point I was making, do not fall for lies, regardless of their source, even if it is other Christians. 🙂

I’m with you there. That is battle I was talking about. I should have been clearer. I wasn’t talking about the pledge. However, there is as far as I know, no REQUIREMENT to say the pledge. As a matter of fact, all I have heard lately is school districts not ALLOWING students to say the pledge. Suspending students for showing their patriotism. This and other things lately are things I never thought I would see in the United States. And it deeply disturbs me to see it.

“Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ. Like so many millions of church members today, he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth that Jesus told Nicodemus was necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

I do agree with the author’s view that the ACLU and Progressive “interpretation” of Jefferson’s view on “separation” is, how shall we say it nicely……….OVERSTATED.

And his own words from the letter in the second citation seem to affirm my interpretation as well:

“it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. ”

This letter is also a great find in that it includes what I also understood about his effort to “rewrite” the Bible. It was NOT just about eliminating the “supernatural” stuff. It was also about “reordering” the story. Something his scientific and mathematical experience would certainly feed. Just guessing but wouldn’t be surprised if the “new order” mirrored the topics he created for his library.

Actually, there are conflicting bits of evidence about the elimination of supernatural stuff at all. Condensing it seemed to be the goal with his first rendition. The second was a focus on the moral teachings only, which Jefferson held as the best among all the religions he studied. A scientific and mathematical mind would have focussed on those things anyway, but it is not necessarily the case that such a mind cannot have faith. You may be right about Jefferson, you may not, but, as you said, much of his non-Christian or anti-religion aspects are certainly overstated.

Here’s a nice way to say Thanks, but screw all of you! General Motors has decided to build the new Cadillacs in China. This may be old news to some, but I think the decision has Obama written all over it.

It’s just another sign of businesses and production fleeing the stale, stagnant, Obama Economy like rats from a sinking ship! And apparently fleeing the Unions as well. Which is ironic considering they are based on Socialist principles to begin with.

Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties.

FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS

The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month.

According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”

Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.

“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”

Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.”

“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.”

He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties.

“What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church,” he said.

Robert Noland, of the Kansas Family Policy Council, said the law would extend well beyond allowing access for gay weddings.

“They (churches) could not deny renting space to a gay couple if they want to have a party,” he told Fox News. “This is just another example of government creating a law imposing upon the freedom of religion and basically telling churches what they can and can’t do.”

So what could happen to churches in Hutchinson that refuse to accommodate gay parties or weddings?

“Unless the city council includes an exemption for churches, it would generate a discrimination complaint for the gay couple and it would be investigated,” Dye told Fox News. She said any churches found guilty of violating the law could be subjected to fines or other penalties.

Gary Ridge, an associate pastor of Westside Baptist Church, told Fox News their congregation would not comply with the proposed law should it pass. He said their church would refuse to host either gay weddings or parties – even if it meant a possible investigation or fines.

“We apply the Bible to our lives,” he said. “When there is a contradiction between what the city council asks and what the Bible says, we are going to follow the Bible.”

“This is an opportunity for the LGBT community to cram their belief system down on our community,” Ridge said. “It may look like a small step, but it’s not the end. Before you know it they will be able to shut down churches for preaching Romans 1:26-27. We’ll be sued for refusing to have homosexual weddings.”

Ridge said Hutchinson is a conservative city, a part of the Bible Belt – and he blamed the controversy on outsiders.

“This is part of a bigger desire to have their lifestyle condoned and accepted,” he said. “We don’t condone their activity.”

The Hutchinson measure would also have a major impact on private businesses and landlords. Restaurants, bars and retail shops would be required to provide special bathrooms for individuals who may have male body parts but identify as a female.

According to a FAQ sheet provided by the city, employers would also be forced to allow workers to dress based on their gender identity. Read the entire FAQ sheet by clicking here.

“Dress codes would not be precluded as long as an employer allows an employee to appear, groom and dress consistent with the employee’s gender identity and gender expression,” the FAQ stated.

As far as bathrooms, the city FAQ stated, “A transgender person must be allowed to use restrooms appropriate to their gender identity rather than their assigned gender at birth without being harassed or questioned.”

The city’s revised ordinance would also require transgender individuals to use the locker room and shower facilities of their choosing.

Another issue for Hutchinson’s Christian community involves workplace discrimination. The policy dictates that business owners or landlords are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“I know a couple who owned a bed and breakfast in Kansas City,” he said. “They decided to shut down because they could see that they were going to be forced to make decisions that might have legal effects upon them. They might be sued if they didn’t rent their facility out to a gay couple who might want to use it.”

Staver said it’s unfair that Christian business owners might have to make decisions about their future.

“You shouldn’t have to choose between participating in the marketplace, running a business or operating a church on the one hand and accepting the LGBT agenda on the other,” Staver said. “This is a battle that is coming. This is a culture divide I think we will see play out across the country.”

Fact #1. The world’s most powerful governments have printed more paper money in the last three years than in the prior half century!

Read that again and think about it carefully for a moment.

If just ONE government ran its money-printing presses 24/7, it would be dangerous enough.

But as I demonstrated here last week, we now have ALL FOUR of the most powerful central banks doing it all at once.

And this money printing is SO big — with the potential for such a dramatic impact on your financial life — I feel I MUST give you the details again:

It’s all summarized in this chart, showing you the size of each central bank’s balance sheet — a measure for the total money-printing operations to date.

And as you can plainly see, every major central bank in the world has joined the party …

The U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) has nearly TRIPLED the size of its balance sheet — from about 6% of GDP just three years ago to almost 17% of GDP.

The Bank of England (BOE) has followed in lock step with the U.S.

The European Central Bank (ECB) has suddenly expanded its balance sheet from about 20% of GDP to close to 30% GDP. And …

The Bank of Japan (BOJ) has also run up the size of its balance sheet assets to about 30% of its economy!

Total Balance Sheets of the Four
Central Banks: More Than $10 Trillion!

That’s $10 trillion in paper money that’s been pumped into the global economy!

I cannot stress enough how unprecedented this is.

Even in the early 1930s, when the nation’s entire banking system shut down … and even in the early 1980s, when hundreds of U.S. banks were failing each year, the Fed and other central banks never went this far. (The sole exception: The central bank of Germany in the 1920s.)

But here’s the greatest irony of all: It’s not working.

Or, at best, it’s running into the law of diminishing returns — more money, less results.

Shock and Awe

Think how utterly disappointing — and shocking — that must be for the masterminds behind this giant global money operation!

They had hoped that, after dumping all these trillions into their economies, they would have created a respectable boom.

But we see nothing of the kind!

Instead, the U.S. economy is stumbling again, Japan’s economy is dead in the water, and Europe’s is sinking straight into another recession.

They also hoped that, after dishing out so much liquid cash to their biggest banks, those institutions would naturally be in far better shape today.

But, again, we see nothing of the kind!

Sure, some banks have improved and may continue to do so. But many of the world’s largest have used most of the new money to double down on their riskiest bets!

Prime examples: Big European banks. Over the past few months, they have used the bulk of the cheap money they borrowed from the ECB to buy precisely the same junk that got them into so much trouble in the first place — the toxic bonds of weak countries like Spain, Portugal, and Italy!

And guess which countries are the headquarters of the biggest banks with the most dangerous exposure! Germany and France — the core euro-zone nations with the ultimate responsibility of backstopping the debt crisis!

Finally, they hoped that, with all that funny money pouring into the banks — and with those banks pouring the money back into the bonds of the weakest countries — global investors would finally breathe a sigh of relief and stop worrying about massive sovereign defaults.

Not so!

Investors are again abandoning sovereign government bonds in droves.

In Spain, for example, they’re driving bond prices into the gutter.

Worse, they’re driven up the cost of insuring against a Spanish government default to the highest level of all time!

And in Italy, we see the same pattern.
But if you think this is just another Greece, consider this: Combined, the economies of Spain and Italy are more than TWELVE times larger than Greece’s economy.

Spain’s economy alone is larger than Australia’s, South Korea’s — even Saudi Arabia’s. And Italy’s economy is larger than Russia’s, India’s, or Canada’s!

So where does all this leave us? Answer:

The Deadliest Vicious Cycle

Consider the sequence of events …

First, some the world’s largest banks in the U.S. and Europe came within a whisker of failure in the wake of the great housing bust and the global debt crisis.

Second, the world’s most powerful governments pumped in trillions of dollars to keep the banks afloat — and they continue to do so to this very day.

Next, many of the banks used a big chunk of that money to double down on their riskiest investments, digging an even deeper hole for themselves and inviting an even bigger outpouring of paper money from their governments.

In short, the deeper the debt crisis gets, the more governments are driven to print money … and the more they print, the deeper the crisis gets.

This, my friend, is the deadliest vicious cycle we’ve ever seen or imagined!

You don’t have to be a dog to smell the inflation coming. The dollar has enjoyed it’s time as the Petrodollar, and that seems to be ending. THe US credit card may be cancelled very soon. Maybe the government can fake an alien invasion to distract everyone 😆

“Coming?” What do mean? Inflation is already here where I live. Everything I see is higher and going up further every day. Especially food. We can’t hardly afford to eat. I am SUPPOSED to be on a special diet now because of my heart and diabetic problems, but I can’t AFFORD to be on it. Regular food cost too much as it is, ain’t no WAY I can afford “Special” food.

And gas. OMG, don’t even git me started! What they are doing with gas prices should be illegal. I don’t care if it’s Obama (and I think it is, he wanted fuel prices to “skyrocket” forcing us to go green) or the rest of the Govt or the oil companies. It is ridiculous for gas to be this high.

No, not yet. Too much is still here, and there are too few other places to go. A lot of the reason we are not falling faster is because there is nowhere else to go. Its not like there is a place with a vastly superior political or economic climate on the planet. Thus, people stay and keep trying. If there was a country more free with better tax system, etc., I would be blogging from there now, I think a lot of us would. There is enough strength here to last a while, and I think enough people are waking up that we will stop voting pure socialists into office. The bad news is that they are only waking part-way up, so we may just get some pseudo-conservative progressives. So, could it go downhill more in the next year? Yes. Go over a cliff? No. We have a good decade to wait for that.

I wouldn’t say next year. But if Moron is reelected I would say most certainly before the end of his next term. Maybe even if Romney is elected, before the end of his. This Trillions of dollars in debt is going to be a real problem.

Had a discussion with our Marketing Manager today. He said business is slowing down. Not a good sign as this is the energy/chemicals market that is tied very closely to the overall economy. Is this a repeat of the ’30s. We had the market bubble in ’29, the bank failure in ’33 and the second recession in ’37/’38. I fear we are doomed to repeat history. Heck we have been repeating. Seems we learned nothing.

If Obama is reelected, I fear 2013/14 will be a disaster. Obamacare will hit unless overturned. It will create massive realignment of healthcare/insurance. Most small companies will drop healthcare altogether and force their employees into the pool. They will compensate by increasing wages some but not enough to offset the additional costs.

If Romney is elected, his success will depend on Congress. If the Dems retain control of the Senate (51 seats) then grid lock is ensured as there are no statesmen left there. Even if the Dems only have 41 seats, they can still block most legislation. So the odds strongly favor more divided government and more gridlock.

I fear the worst T.
At most maybe ObamaCare will be overturned, or at least the mandate, which is the same thing. My wife works for a Home Health Care Company. They have already been told that if it takes effect, they will drop their insurance and we will be thrown in the pool. And they are already seeing the results of it by the cuts they are already making. Meanwhile, the liberals are declaring that this is not so because it hasn’t been instituted yet. Well, me and my wife beg to differ.
I also fear gridlock in Congress, which will gridllock the whole works. I’m sure that will be blamed on the Republicans just like everything else is.
Meanwhile in the Presidential race, I am being told that I should be mad about how Romney spends HIS money to distract me from the way that President Obama is spending MINE.

Our company health insurance went up over 17% this year. We were told it was because we have more young women of child bearing years. We are a small company with only about 20 employees. We hired one new person that fits the description. We are also part of a much larger pool. So my conclusion is that the insurance companies are planning ahead and raising rates while they can before the restrictions are locked. This will ultimately drive more companies to drop insurance resulting in higher rates and a continued decline in private insurance. This disaster will force a recession and a significant decline in our health care.

My wife’s insurance has gone up, deductible has gone up, and they have covered less, every year since OBAMACARE was passed. After it takes effect, or if, they will cancel it completely and toss us in the pool. Or rather under the bus!

As JAC said,
“While the US dollar is SHIT, it is the best SHIT in the pile and looks to remain so.

But as with all economic issues,………..it all………………depends!!!

As to what happens if the US Dollar is no longer the oil currency? We will no longer be able to export our inflation to others. We will be forced to eat what we have grown.”

If Obama buys re-election, I think we will see a worldwide depression in 2013-14.

Romney or most Republicans could put it off for years. Paul Ryan or Ron Paul could put us back on the path to sustainable prosperity, but they would still have to deal with the Democrats. A Democrat senate that refuses to consider a budget that is a legal requirement would still be happy to obstruct any and every effort to return to a sound fiscal policy.

So, I’ve been out and about for awhile and away from TV, internet, news. Been kinda nice actually that I couldn’t (or chose not to) keep up from the summit of Camelback, the Red Rock Trails of Sedona or the rapids of the Upper Salt River. But a few things I’m wondering about and figure you good people of SUFA are the best to give it to me straight and save me the research:

1. Secret Service/Prostitutes – Obama is screwing us all everyday, so not sure what happened here?

The White House has determined its advance team was not engaged in “any inappropriate conduct” as part of the Colombia prostitution scandal, after launching an internal review out of “an abundance of caution.”

Of course, the White House internal investigation is going to show nothing….What a joke the WH and POTUS is becoming…it is embarrasing.

As I have said before…….on the Euro crises…..watch Germany. They are the key. Do not fear the Yuan…….it is more worthless than our dollar.

D13’s observation: Germany is the key to Europe. If Germany decides to bail out the Euro….meltdowns are avoided. BUT….I see Germany protecting itself and is fully prepared to go to their DM. I can see a Germany US merger*** in currencies.

**** Caveat: It will not happen, of course, but I can see it. The US and Germany are in position to own the currency for decades.

******* Caveat 2: Germany is positioning itself right this very minute. They do not want Obama elected….if Obama is elected again, it will create a fiasco fiscally. But, with an Obama election, and Germany backs out of the World Bank and goes commando,…they will be in a very good position to advance the DM past the American Dollar.

It is not dead yet…Obama has no clue as to what he is doing. If Iran sells its oil to other nations and those nations use other things to buy it……it better be gold or something “hard” for trading. No other currency will work, Obama is over his head in world affairs and especially in world trading issues and sanctions. Sanctions only hurt the little guy and will not tough on those in power.

Do not over look a more sinister motive. I have changed my mind on Obama…I am becoming convinced that he is not just a :Progressive Liberal”, I am becoming convinced he is nothing but a pawn in which to get things done for more powerful people. He absolutely, in my opinion, does not have the United States at heart. There are too many factors that make me think this now. I was willing to give Buck and his minions the benefit of the doubt that Obama is just a liberal…but he is more. He is very dangerous.

“Authorities in Georgia say a grandmother foiled a robbery attempt by two armed men by getting into a shootout with them, injuring one man.

Police told The Telegraph that Lulu Campbell just dropped off her grandson at her daughter’s house early Saturday morning when someone demanded money outside her car, threatening to shoot her.

Campbell says the man fired at her, missing. The 57-year-old fired back, striking him in the chest. Her truck sustained eight bullet holes in the hood, one in the grill. Both front side windows were destroyed. The second man fled after she shot at him.

Something to ponder, there are 63 places approved in 20 states to opperate drones. I see Texas has a few, which might make sense for border security. But why so few near the border and the vast majority are for watching….us.(or Buck and Matt)

LOI…we have several drones flying the border and the gulf coast,,,,they are so important in the desert areas and the Big Bend area……also important for the coast line where the cartels are using submarines….but they can be spotted easily.

Do not know about the rest, but I have seen these drones up close and personal…..total infra red and audio capability so good they can hear a flea fart at 5 thousand feet. They are also equipped for cell phone interception and interpretation. They are equipped with GPS recording that can trace cell phone operations as well as listen in…..VERY formidable aircraft…….AND they are stealthy and quiet. It is how we found the cartel/AlQ training camps in Mexico….that they deny,of course.

I don’t know either D, just seems funny how they cluster around the gulf states and the north east… Glad Kansa has a few, I stress out at night worried someone will sneak in and steal all our corn…. But I can see where these are very practicle, Alaska wilderness in bad weather, search without risking additional lives. I guess my main thought is arn’t these pretty expensive for a nation that’s broke? And with all the unemployed, why not equip some of them with mopeds and a ObamaPhone and put them on patrol? Not saying it would fix anything, but the liberals would feel better.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. ” Hee Hee He!

April 24, 2012
The Last Days of Global Warming Theory?
Timothy Birdnow

Is the Pope Catholic? What would people say if he were to come out and admit he might be wrong about the divinity of Christ?

That is essentially what has occurred in the Church of the Green Goddess; James Lovelock, father of the Gaia hypothesis, Defender of the Environmentalist Faith, most radical of Global Warming alarmists, has recanted!

Well, he has retreated, at any rate. Much like the legend of Galileo he has mumbled under his breath “and yet it still moves” (an unproven comment attributed to Galileo at his heresy trial.) Lovelock has stated that, while he was “alarmist” still there is Global Warming, but we just can’t seem to find it. We’ve checked all the usual places; in the oceans, in the troposphere, in the ice caps, in the dryer, under the couch, under the pile of junk mail, and the missing heat just isn’t to be found. That tricky Gaia! She likes to play with us so!In an interview with MSNBC Lovelock made such statements as:

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,”

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,”

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that….”

Lovelock was wise to walk this back; too much of the evidence simply fails to justify the catastrophic vision of Global Warming theory.

There is the matter of the missing heat which alarmists theorize is hiding at the bottom of the oceans. But they have no mechanism for this heat moving downward, something heat does not normally do, and cannot find it through deep-sea probes. While Arctic ice has been weak, it has reached a new high for recent years. Himalayan glaciers have stubbornly failed to melt and some have even grown. Worldwide precipitation has stubbornly failed to increase in a statistically meaningful way . There is no solid evidence that sea level rise has accelerated in recent years . Oh, and it hasn’t warmed since Bill Clinton’s first term in office.

The next few years should be fun, as Alarmist scientists, desperate to disassociate themselves from this failed theory, run for the tall grass. The Alpha Male of the pack has just retreated.

For those of you who like good news, global sea ice is now 728,000 square kilometers above normal for yesterday’s date (normal being the 1979-2008 average value). Of course, you won’t hear this reported in the lamestream media anywhere at all, but the data is right there at Cryosphere today and the NSIDC. If the current pattern holds, we may be 1 million square kilometers of sea ice above normal sometime in May, and Northern hemisphere sea ice (which is only -0.074 million square kilometers right now) may well go above the sacred “normal” line.

If NH Sea Ice goes above normal (in SPRING even!) and global sea ice breaks the +1,000,000 square kilometers figure, I don’t see how the media will be able to ignore it, but they will certainly try. I suggest posting sea ice figures in the comments of any climate-related article you come across… I have done so on occasion, and it drives the “true believers” nuts, because they cannot refute the Cryosphere Today and NSIDC data which they have held sacred since the modern low value for NH sea ice was hit back in 2007.

For example, the “abnormally warm March” was only abnormally warm in the Central and Eastern US. Globally the temperature was only 0.11 degrees C above normal, which is well within one standard deviation of normal. The January global temp was -0.09, and the February temp was -0.12, so those 2 months were below normal, although also well within 1 standard deviation of normal.

Now for the bad news: Joe Bastardi is predicting that the Winters of 2012-2014 are going to be nastily cold (remember the late 1970’s ???) and quite a few scientists using solar theory are predicting 30-40 years of cooling, with the global temperature dropping by as much as 2 degrees C or perhaps more (1.5 to 2 degrees seems to be about the average drop predicted).

If that sort of drop in global temperature happens in the next 30-40 years, people will be ice-skating on the Thames in winter again, like they did in the 1700s. The other effects of such a drop will be far less pleasant to deal with….

It is worse than that GMan, The UN KNOWS THESE THINGS but still hides them as best it can from the people of the world. Their “ignoring” of the facts is purposeful, because it doesn’t fit their agenda. In this case, their purposeful ignorance is, in reality, a high crime against humanity.

Are you aware that Al Gore and many of the other high-dollar global warming freakazoids are now some of the largest owners of land in Africa and South America? Why is this?? (you ask)??

Well, when the big solar minimum hits, and lasts for 30-60 years, and the world temperature drops by 1.5 to 2 degrees C, WHERE IS THE WORLD’S FOOD GOING TO HAVE TO COME FROM???

The most productive agricultural land will no longer be in the “temperate zones” of the Northern Hemisphere, because the temperate zones will be COLD.

Suddenly, all of our food is going to have to come from the tropical and equatorial regions! This is precisely why a bunch of people like Al Gore have purchased EXTREMELY CHEAP land in those regions in large swaths.

It didn’t hurt that they convinced everyone that the rain forests were doomed, and the Sahara was going to “grow like crazy”, and it didn’t hurt to ignore wars in Sudan and other central African nations, that just made the land that much cheaper for them to snap up.

Now, when the AGW myth is shattered, Gore and his cronies will have already made their billions on “green energy” and all of that rot, and gotten out to protect their profits. Then, when we are all enduring the next Little Ice Age, Gore and his cronies will make another few billion because they own what will end up being the best farmland in the world until the solar grand minimum is over.

Peter, This new ice age stuff sounds alot like the 70’s 🙂 Not to mention, by the time the growing regions actually changes, I’ll be dead of old age, as will Gore. I am quite skepticle of climate scientists as you could well imagine.

I don’t think that there will be a full-blown ice-age, but the projections for the next 2 solar cycles (solar cycles 25 and 26) indicate that they could parallel the Dalton or Maunder minima and we could well have a 30-year solar grand minimum. If I had only seen one study indicating that, I might brush it off, but I have seen at least half a dozen studies that all agree that the next 2 solar cycles are going to be long (around 15-16 years as opposed to the normal 11 years), and VERY weak with few to no sunspots present on the solar disc. IF solar theory is correct, and solar grand minima equate to strong global cooling, then a global drop of 1.5 to 2 degrees C is simply expected. IF AGW CO2 theory is correct, we have nothing to worry about, because as Michael Mann says, “The sun has nothing to do with climate”.

Solar cycle 24 is already weaker than expected, and the long-range forecasts (from NOAA, mind you) already are modeling that from Fall of 2012 through much of 2014 the vast majority of the globe is going to have below-normal temperatures. Of course, you won’t actually HEAR THAT FROM NOAA, but it is precisely what their long-range models are showing. The current solar cycle (24) should peak in about 1 year, and it is already far weaker than solar cycle 22 or solar cycle 23 were. Note that solar cycle 22 and solar cycle 23 were 2 of the strongest cycles since 1910-1940. (And notice that from 1910 to 1940 we had warming very similar to what we had from 1979-1998.)

My prediction is that from April through June you will see global temperature anomalies on the order of +0.25 to +0.40 degrees C. After that, global temperature anomalies will start to fall rather rapidly and we will have a 3-year period where global temperature anomalies are below normal for the majority of months. After that, it gets harder to predict, but if the sun behaves as predicted, the next 30-40 years are going to be unpleasant. Airlines should do well, as it gets colder, more and more “Northerners” will be willing to pay for those vacations in Florida and Hawaii again!

by AWR Hawkins 4 hours ago 9 post a comment
Here’s the picture—Alaska contains a wealth of oil both on land, in ANWR, and off shore in its outer continental shelf. But President Obama and the Democrat party are staunchly opposed to allowing us to avail ourselves of it. And via the Keystone Pipeline, Canada could supply nearly 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day that we’re not getting from Alaska, but Obama and the Democrats have stopped that too.

As a result, the price we’re paying per-gallon for gasoline is steadily climbing, and other countries are choosing to go where we won’t for oil. Thus the oil Canada was going to sell us via Keystone will now go to China and oil up near the Arctic will be going to Russia. And the company Russia has hired to do the extraction is none other than Exxon Mobil.

Think about how backward things are under Obama—the largest oil company in America is going to be drilling in waters around the Arctic where they expect to find 85 billion barrels in recoverable oil. And instead of sending it to Texas refineries, and thereafter to gas stations across America, the oil will be sent to Russia and refined for their use.

By the way, if extracted at the rate of 1 million barrels a day, 85 billion barrels of oil would last for 85,000 days. 85,000 days equals well over 200 years. Yet here we are, listening to Obama telling us the future is one of wind farms, electric cars, and a companies like Solyndra.

Perhaps we’ll get lucky and Russia will sell us some of their oil. If Obama keeps us in this energy stranglehold we’re going to need it.

Of course Obamy doesn’t want it. We might actually have enough fuel for our own needs if we went after all the oil that was available. We might be energy independent. Fuel prices might go down. We might not be so dependent on the Government. We might not need such a big, overreaching, leviathon intruding in every facet of our lives.

See, problem was that Franco died too soon. He was an enigma. I always considered him the only adult in a country full of selfish teenagers. He also wrote the book on transitioning a government from unfree, the thing he actually created, to free. I had always hoped that it would work, but there seems to be something missing in the national character that the country could go so big time off the cliff twice in one century.

All Hail Obama……All Hail Obama…………The War on Terror is Over…………..All Hail Obama………..The War on Terror is Over…!!!!!!!! Woo Hoo !!

Just announced on TV …….Obama proclaims that the war on terror is over……..Holy Shit….the man waved his hand and it is over. Al Queda has been eliminated and the rest of what is left will revert to peaceful…Islamanism. (Is that a new word?) THe Muslim Brotherhood is NOT a terrorist organization according to the State Department and the Obama Magic Machine. I gotta sit down on this one.

🙄
Maybe it’s because there’s nothing worth fighting over. According to Robert Spencer, Mohammed is a figment of someone’s imagination:

While it may be true that “absence of proof is not proof of absence,” Spencer in his new book Did Muhammad Exist? does quite a convincing job of showing that there is, indeed, a complete “absence of proof” when it comes to the historicity of Muhammad. Yes, admittedly, it’s nearly impossible to “prove a negative,” and Spencer concedes as much; but in the vacuum of evidence there is no reason from a skeptic’s perspective to accept as factually true the traditional stories about Muhammadhttp://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

I was glad to see the admission that the same challenge exists for Christianity, as far as documentation. And the conclusion of the full story raises the point I have struggled with for some time.

That is WHY was it considered blaspheme to even question Mohammad, his existence, his supremacy, his story, etc, etc.. If he was just the prophet, then why do the Muslims give him the protection of God himself in this respect?

There is no doubt in my mind that Islam, like Christianity, borrowed from other pre-existing religions in the region. The difference is that Islam created rules that were consistent with the tribal and tyrannical imperialistic nature of the Middle Eastern World at the time.

The CIA has to divert their drug money to Syria and other places in Africa and can no longer afford to fund attacks on American soil, so the war that our government invented is over. But we still must have someone to fear or they can’t suck money from us to fight a fake enemy, wonder who or what that will be? 🙂

Raising kids with a work ethic is about to be illegal. FFA & 4H, education programs that work are going to be replaced with government approved, 90 hour courses, taught away from parents. Government can’t trust parents to teach their own children…..

A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.

Rossie Blinson, a 21-year-old college student from Buis Creek, N.C., told The Daily Caller that the federal government’s plan will do far more harm than good.

“The main concern I have is that it would prevent kids from doing 4-H and FFA projects if they’re not at their parents’ house,” said Blinson.

“I started showing sheep when I was four years old. I started with cattle around 8. It’s been very important. I learned a lot of responsibility being a farm kid.”

In Kansas, Cherokee County Farm Bureau president Jeff Clark was out in the field — literally on a tractor — when TheDC reached him. He said if Solis’s regulations are implemented, farming families’ labor losses from their children will only be part of the problem.

“What would be more of a blow,” he said, “is not teaching our kids the values of working on a farm.”

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that the average age of the American farmer is now over 50.

“Losing that work-ethic — it’s so hard to pick this up later in life,” Clark said. “There’s other ways to learn how to farm, but it’s so hard. You can learn so much more working on the farm when you’re 12, 13, 14 years old.”

John Weber, 19, understands this. The Minneapolis native grew up in suburbia and learned the livestock business working summers on his relatives’ farm.

He’s now a college Agriculture major.

“I started working on my grandparent’s and uncle’s farms for a couple of weeks in the summer when I was 12,” Weber told TheDC. “I started spending full summers there when I was 13.”

“The work ethic is a huge part of it. It gave me a lot of direction and opportunity in my life. If they do this it will prevent a lot of interest in agriculture. It’s harder to get a 16 year-old interested in farming than a 12 year old.”

Weber is also a small businessman. In high school, he said, he took out a loan and bought a few steers to raise for income. “Under these regulations,” he explained, “I wouldn’t be allowed to do that.”

They want to destroy the family, the days of families working together and taking care of each other in order to survive is being outlawed. One more necessary step, if one wants to have complete governmental control. But Obama isn’t a socialist-the democrat party hasn’t changed into a party of socialist-they are just using Reason and Science and we’re all extremist.

Obama and the democrat party are socialists-they continue to deny this fact-but they’re actions keep proving it to be true. They are set on destroying the family unit and erase any lines between public and private and this is just another step in that process-and it is wayyyyy past time to stop them. So vote him out people. the republicans may not be perfect but this new crowd of @#$$@#$@# in control are dangerous.

My reading of the rule — that I will defer to you as I haven’t had time to reach the full proposal — was that even if the family farm is not owned as a sole proprietorship, so long as the sole owners of the farm are the child’s parents, the exemption would still apply.

No clue — perhaps there are additional exemptions that have been added, or more clarification given on this. I would be more than amenable to amend the proposal to allow for an exemption where the farm is not ‘solely’ owned by the child’s parents and to include farms owned by certain defined relatives.

Michelle Obama:
“All you have to guide you are your values and your vision and your life experiences,” she said. ” In the end when you’re making those impossible choices, it all boils down to who you are and what you stand for — and we all know who my husband is.”
“That’s what you need to tell people with ever door you knock on, with every call you make, with every conversation you have. You need to tell people our values. Tell them everything that’s at stake next November,” she said.

P.S. Note that the wage side shows “median” income then assigns an “average”. This would be the “average median”. Putting aside the ridiculous notion of such a value, what it means is HALF of the population is below this value and half is above this value. Just knowing that changes the implication of what the “average” line means with respect to education.

@ Buck……Listening to all the analyzation of the SCOTUS from all spectrums of media (conservative to liberal)…… it appears that State;s rights seemed to resonate with both sides of the SCOTUS in respect of the failure of the Federal government to act. The Governments only position seemed to be that immigration “belongs to the administration” and can be exercised at will. This answer did not seem to sit well since, apparently, Arizona proved its case on adverse cost and criminal activity as a direct result of the lack of Federal enforcement. Interested in your thoughts on the apparent line of questioning of the SOTUS.

As a follow up…if SCOTUS says the main part of the Arizona law is upheld, this appears to be landmark in the sense that State’s, in their estimation of the Feds to act, can then act on its own to protect its interest as long as it does not change the spirit of Federal Law. IN other words, failure of the Fed to act on its own laws can result in a state law the mirrors the Fed Law in retrospect but allows state authorities to act. Agree with my conclusion?

To be fair, I haven’t really been following this case all that much — been way too busy the past few days.

The Fed Gov’t does have a solid argument here and probably should prevail. That being said, Arizona does not have a bad argument in the least. I would expect SCOTUS (especially given the current makeup of the Court) to rule in favor of Arizona. While I personally feel the Fed has the better argument, it really is much more of a toss up than other cases before SCOTUS this year…

I agree basically, but I also think that any state that can “prove”, to the courts satisfaction, that life has basically changed for the legal inhabitants as a direct result of the failure to enforce Fed Law…..has a pretty good “cause in effect” issue. Should prove interesting.

Interesting thought there Colonel…I doubt it. In the event SCOTUS rules for Arizona I believe they wouldn’t leave it so open-ended that any state can claim there has been some sort of adverse impact on the citizens’ life. There would probably need to be something more.

I don’t think they would eave it that wide open….but I can see a border state, for instance, being able to prove a more financial hardship on non enforcement of Federal Laws. The burden of proof in an immigration issue, would be on the state to show significant financial hardship on the inhabitants of that state that would NOT be there if Federal enforcement was carried out, more so than an other state. Arizona was impressive with their presentation….and the fact that the Feds have even closed Federal parks in Arizona because the druggies have taken over did not help their case. Interesting all the way around.

Do states have borders? I think yes. Do states have the right to enforce the law within those borders? Again yes, but with restrictions. They cannot violate federal law. But how is enforcing federal law violating it? If it is legal for a federal LEO to enforce a law, how does it become illegal for a state LEO to enforce that exact same law? Oh, they have no federal authority, so the state passed state laws that mimic federal law, allowing state LEO’s to enforce state law. As long as the state law does not conflict the federal law, usually prohibiting federal laws such as free speech, I think it has to be legal. The federal government is trying to not enforce federal law that this administration does not agree with, so the states have started enforcing the law themselves. The federal government is attempting to stop the enforcement of a law they could not change even when the had a majority in the house, senate and the WH….I think the SCOTUS usually kicks these cases out and tells them to change the law if they don’t like it, not ignore it….

And an example of why a state might decide to not rely on the federal government….

In a shocking development in the Operation Fast and Furious investigation, documents show Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents allowed grenade parts to walk in addition to guns.

The emails also show Obama administration officials acknowledging that they may lose track of grenades but would still be able to accomplish their original objective even if the grenades explode.

According to an internal email that was provided to Congress by the Department of Justice and first reported by CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson — who’s been the media’s most dogged reporter in tracking down facts on Fast and Furious – ATF began watching accused smuggler Jean Baptiste Kingery’s AK-47 purchases in 2004. In the 2009 internal ATF email, Obama administration officials admitted they believed Kingery was “trafficking them into Mexico.”

The 2009 email shows the ATF officials had then become aware of Kingery’s alleged grenade trafficking.

The administration officials then put together a plan: They secretly intercepted Kingery’s grenade parts after he ordered them online, marked them with special paint and gave them back to him. Then, they allowed him to take those grenade parts into Mexico. ATF was going to try to find his weapons factory there — even though the U.S. government and its federal law enforcement agencies have no jurisdiction in Mexico — with the apparent goal of building a bigger case against Kingery.

ATF agents had planned to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials — who, unlike ATF agents who ultimately report to Attorney General Eric Holder, report up the chain to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. (RELATED: Full coverage of Operation Fast and Furious)

The emails show ATF agents were aware they might lose track of Kingery while they allowed him to transport the grenade parts into Mexico. The emails also show ATF agents knew that the grenades could end up exploding and killing innocent people if they proceeded with the plan. That didn’t stop the Obama administration’s ATF from allowing the grenades to walk.

“Even in a post blast, as long as the safety lever is recovered we will be able to identify these tagged grenades,” an official wrote in one email.

In addition to those revelations, new evidence photos have emerged: More than 2,000 rounds of ammunition and scores of grenade parts and fuse assemblies are seen in evidence photos that were just turned over to Congress. According to Attkisson’s report, officials had taken Kingery into custody in 2010 — long before Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered with a Fast and Furious-supplied gun — after having caught him trying to transport that ammunition and those grenade parts and fuse assemblies into Mexico hidden inside the spare tire of the SUV he was travelling in.

Attkisson said that ATF agents questioned Kingery at that point but then “inexplicably released” him.

Internally, some in the ATF objected to these practices. For instance, ATF’s Mexico attaché, Carlos Canino — who has cooperated with congressional investigators and appeared willingly before the House Oversight Committee last summer — said ATF was not supposed to allow weapons, including grenades, to walk.

“We are forbidden from doing that type of activity,” Canino wrote in one email. “If ICE is telling you they can do that, they are full of shit.”

I would hate to be the guy that:
attacked an unarmed woman and had his @ss kicked instantly, like in a movie.
had a woman force sex upon me(can’t rape the willing, after all)
at 32, needed viagera to perform
after three days of sex, complains???
after being let go and given 1,000 rubles, goes and whines to the police….
This “man” is destine to be someone’s bitch. Maybe he’ll like the forced sex in prison better?

You break into a business, get stomped. And then in a stroke I would consider pure luck, get tied up and made to have sex with a, from what I could tell, pretty blonde for 3 days, and you’re complaining! SIGH!!!! I GUESS I might complain that it was only twice.

Britain Has No Austerity. Blame its Recession on Last Year’s Tax Hikes
Yossi Gestetner

Robert Reich has written an article headlined “Britain’s Austerity Recession.” In it he laments his own created fact that the reason for Britain slipping into a recession recently is due to their austerity; better known as Budget Cuts.

But his claim is a blatant lie. Here are the numbers:

The 2008 U.K. national (excluding local) Budget was £426 billion. It rose to £496 billion in 2010, and the new and current 2012 budget is £527 billion. This is a total increase of 24% within four years.

Increasing your budget six percent in each of four years back-to-back is only austerity when placed against Obama Budgets.

The 2008 U.K. Budget was 26% larger than the one of four years earlier. In other words, England’s budget rose on a similar pace from 2005 through 2012.

Hardly “austerity.”

When comparing by category the 2012 budget to the 2008 budget, Welfare spending increased 29%; Education ‘Investments’ as Obama would call it, is up by 20%; and spending on Health Care increased by 21%.

Place U.K.’s budget size against the size of the Country’s GDP, and spending is also on the rise: In 2000 the budget was 26% of GDP; it rose to 27.8% four years later; increased to 29% of the GDP by 2008, and is 32.9% of GDP as of 2012.

Daunting austerity?

Local governments in England spent a total £155 billion in 2008, and are spending £185 billion in 2012. In my math book, it is an annual budget increase of 5%. For context, the British population over those four years grew by a total of less than three percent!

If you want, blame the recession on tax! U.K. hiked tax on the Super Rich early last year from 40% to 50%. Instead of getting £1 billion in more revenue, the income to the U.K government from this group dropped by hundreds of millions compared to a year earlier.

Maybe they are taking their attitude from the U.S.. Raise the budget %20 and then cut back %5 and call it CUTTING. We have been doing that for years. Nobody knows what REALLY cutting back means, or how to do it. And they are afraid the people they govern will revolt and toss them out of office if they lose any freebies.

The Democrats here have been hanging on to power with that message for the past 6 or 7 years. Shoot, it’s probably been going on a lot longer than that. People don’t want to hear that they might those freebies. They tend to get upset when they hear that. You can cut back everything but THEIR benefits.

This is so strangely funny, liberals are always going on that the Bush tax cuts didn’t work, but they did. Cutting taxes resulted in more revenue for the government. Raising taxes in the UK resulted in reduced revenue. This is also two examples of how to make matters worse, Bush and the British increased their spending, resulting in increased deficits…

This is like the “Buffet Rule” tax hike. It Will raise 40 some odd billion dollars over the next ten years. The Govet spends 200 billion in one MONTH. So this tax hike is supposed to help HOW? And we are also supposed to believe that they will use that money to pay down the deficit. UUUH HUUUUH.

I found this on a site and copied it. It is not my words but in reading it, I can’t find anywhere that it is not truthful. The best I can remeber and research, this is the facts. So read and think about it. Think back and see if this isn’t the truth. And not just what you don’t want to hear.

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day…
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush…
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007….THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”

I believe a lot of it has to do with the “Plantation Mentality” a lot of people have. And no I am not just talking about the Black people. The fact is, sadly, That there are folks of ALL races and even nationality that have this mental deficiency.

It’s the idea that the Federal Government, or the Massa, is supposed to take care of them and provide for all their needs, And if the minor inconvenience of that is to have the Govt in their business, well that’s just fine with them. It’s just included in the cost of getting freebies. And they got to have them freebies.

We are steadily moving from a society of good work ethic and personal responsibilty, to one of dependence and no work ethic and complain if someone tries to take your freebies away or even suggests such.

It is going to have a lot to do with our demise as a Nation too. After all, our strength was in that work ethic and responsibility and without it we are no better than the European Social Economic disasters over there.

Dateline El Paso: Dit…dit…dit………… Man makes “wrong turn” and faces jail time for 30 years. It seems that a truck driver “got lost” on his way to Phoenix, Arizona and claims he made a wrong turn and ended up in Juarez, Mexico…..

D13 muses: Hmmmmm…makes a wrong turn off of Interstate 10, drives through the heart of El Paso, goes up to a bridge that says INTERNATIONAL BORDER in four foot letters that glow in the dark, crosses a big river names Rio Grande, CLEARS Mexican Customs, and gets stopped by a joint US/Mexican Task Force at the 3 kilometer line…..His words were, ” Is this Mexico?” His mother is so upset at his treatment, that she is hiring a US attorney, who has to then hire a Mexican attorney simply because he made a mistake and made a wrong turn…..how outrageous is this?

****Did I forget to mention that his cargo was 268,000 rounds of small arm ammunition?

Note: 1 – The task force was NOT a US Federally funded project. It is funded by Texas and the City of Juarez.
Note 2: – Perhaps we should learn from the laws of Mexico for illegal border crossings,,,,,minimum 5 years in jail.
NOte3: – Special note to the mother….call Nancy Pelosi….I am sure that this arrest is somehow an assault on women’s health.

It is impossible to cross the Bridge of the America’s “accidentally”……it is even further ludicrous that the driver was not allowed to turn around. There is a turn around available. I have been on Interstate 10 numerous times at El Paso…..you cannot mistake Juarez for Phoenix.

John Wayne once said, “You can’t fix stupid”.

However, it was supposedly a legitimate shipment from Arlington, Texas to Phoenix, Arizona and it just happened to be…..AK 47 and M 16 ammunition…….(the most commonly used ammo by the cartel and Arizona (because of the Federal intervention) just happens to be the main crossing for weapons and ammo…..What is conveniently left out of the story was the mention of a check point set up on Interstate 10 just North of El Paso at the New Mexico border checking truck manifests and cargo. What was also not mentioned was the fact that Texas and Juarez had covert operations set up within the 3 kilometer rule of Mexico…..since the check point was set up on Interstate 10 on both sides of El Paso, and the truck stops were being routinely checked, this lad was caught anyway…..so he makes a wrong turn……conveniently gets through Mexican Customs…..(Cost is $100 USD to bribe the border guards at Mexican customs)…..and takes a route we already knew about. Imagine his surprise when he sees his way blocked with strip spikes and automatic weapons by a band of masked gunmen that just happened to be…..the LEGITIMATE Law……and he asks…..”Is this Mexico”?

Sigh…….actually…..this could be a future Democratic Presidential nominee……..

Tch Tch…..my barrister friend……..you should know by now that I know all of the crossing points and tunnels…..besides, if I was going to get 268,000 rounds of ammo across the border…….it damn sure aint gonna be Juarez…..

How lame is the question….”Is this Mexico?” ROFLMAO…..hysterically…may have to dial 911.

Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He’s targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama’s real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of “disclosure” and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, “he’s doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies.” Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

It’s getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House’s new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable,” but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn’t going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn’t deserve to be one.

Mr. Obama is starting to sound more and more like somone say, like, Hugo Chavez? You know, a DICTATOR! We still haven’t had the general election yet. And I for one, am beginning to worry whether or not we will actually have one.

April 27, 2012
Congressmen Complain as IRS Harasses Tea Party
John McLaughlin

Congressmen from 63 districts have challenged the IRS to explain a series of events indicating a systematic harassment of Tea Party chapters around the nation

As disclosed on a major Tea Party website, beginning in January and February, chapters around the country reported receiving unusual letters mailed from the same Ohio IRS office. The letters requested identification of all volunteers and donors, even though contributions to a 501(c)(4) tax exempt organization are not tax deductible. This led members to worry about harassment audits to chill Tea Party participation.

Representative Tom McClintock (R, CA), in remarks presented on the House floor earlier this week, spoke of the difficulties experienced by Tea Party volunteers attempting to obtain 501(c)(4) status for their new chapter:

A Tea Party group in my district is typical of the reports we are hearing from all across the country. This group submitted articles of incorporation as a non-profit to the state of California, and received approval within a month. Then, they tried to register as a non-profit with the IRS. Despite repeated and numerous inquiries, the IRS stonewalled this group for a year and a half, at which time it demanded thousands of pages of documentation – and gave the group less than three weeks to produce it.

The IRS demanded the names of every participant at every meeting held over the last two years, transcripts of every speech given at those meetings, what positions they had taken on issues, the names of their volunteers and donors, and copies of communications they had with elected officials and on and on.

Perhaps most chilling of all, the organizer of this particular group soon found herself the object of a personal income tax audit by the IRS.

Alarmed by these events, McClintock and the other congressmen have sent a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Schulman asking him to explain how the recent IRS demands “are consistent with precedent and supported by law” and requesting that further such “additional unwarranted and excessive information demands and other dilatory tactics” cease.

McClintock summarizes the Tea Party fear:

No such tactics have been reported by any similar civic groups on the political left, so the conclusion is inescapable – that this administration is very clearly, very pointedly and very deliberately attempting to intimidate, harass and threaten civic minded groups with which they disagree using one of the most feared and powerful agencies of the United States Government to do so.

I tell you now. This harrassment of civic groups and political opponents and donors to the Republican candidate is just the kind of things that Socialist Dictators do. The arrogance is appalling. The blatant corruption of the office of President should be obvious to anyone.

He is bent on intimidating and terrorizing anyone who opposes his policies.

Esom, there are two things missing. One is a formidable enemy (don’t worry, they will create one) and the other is crisis (probably more than one). Any intelligent person knows Obama is a horrible President and has no business in the big chair. His record is clear and he will be voted out of office (unless of course, he manages to create a crisis big enough to suspend elections, let’s say for two years, something that a Democrat Governor has already suggested). I have predicted along time ago, there will be no election this year. 🙂

One of the scariest parts of that article is that a lot of that is already happening. A lot of those events are taking place right in front of the American people, but it is so big that it’s hard to put the pieces together unless you connect the dots like they did. And then it makes sense and is obvious. But you won’t ever convince most people that it’s happening. All you will be called is a conspiracy theorist right up till it’s to late to change it.

Well, the more I see everyday of the intimidation and harrassment of anyone opposed to him and his policies, the more convinced I am that he is going to pull something to try and hold on to power. He and his Democratic pals. I’m sure most people don’t believe it can happen, which is one big reason that it can. Most won’t believe it until it’s done. Especially if it starts to look like he is going to lose the election.

Esom, For the first time I can think of, Russian forces (about 20) will exercise with American forces on US soil in Colorado in May. They will be training on how to take out terrorists (I thought that war was over?). THe Feds are making plans to evacuate an large portion of Chicago when the UN meets in May. Apparently, they know there will be riots, cuz they will likely start them. THe FBI said there could be a Lone Wolf attack on may 1st. Really, they must have found another patsy to arrest. Get your popcorn out, it’s only May (in a couple days) 🙂

Things are just nuts. Crazy nuts. It’s like they are just big pretenders doing reality shows. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry, but certainly anyone can’t take them seriously (and yet they have the power to do very serious things). Check this out from a fundraiser Biden did this morning:

Autism DID exist 30 years ago. There is a lot of research going on to find the cause. Recent genetic research may prove very promising. At least for part of the population.

There is also much work on “cures” or “treatments” as well. Unfortunately many are either not really effective or affect only a select number. Quite frankly, some seem to work because the parents want it to so badly that they believe it does work.

Part of the challenge is the very wide “spectrum” of symptoms that are now ALL part of the Autism diagnosis.

I don’t know the cause and I’m not sold on the vaccine blame either. It is getting much worse, but it would seem to me that finding that common denominator wouldn’t be that hard. Could it be that flouride in drinking water could be helping further the disease? I would like to get numbers on cases in rural areas vs. urban areas. I would also like to get stats on Amish (if any exist, because I know of no cases within our Amish community).

I do think that the cause is not genetic in total, but there is a trigger that sets it off, find that and you find the cure! 🙂

Part of the “increase” in Autism is due to the new awareness among Doctors. They are diagnosing more cases as within the Autism Spectrum instead of assigning them to other diagnosis, such as Mental Retardation.

In fact some doctors are now calling for a review of the diagnostic criteria because it is getting to broad. I have not seen the latest stats but this alone probably accounts for the increase in rates from around 1:150 to 1:100 in the past ten years.

A genetic connection has been found but the cause/effect is not completely understood. The gene relates to brain growth. Once theory is that the genetic code may predispose someone to be affected by a “combination” of other factors. So it would be the interaction of many things that lead to Autism.

Given my knowledge of other things in the natural world, I have thought this would be the ultimate answer. Although not much of an answer as it may mean we can’t interrupt the “factors”. That is without “selecting” against this gene. And I don’t want to get V.H.’s blood pressure up this morning so we won’t chase that rabbit. 🙂

Even strong genetic tendencies are still tendencies, often weaknesses to certain things. Cancer is genetically linked, but cancer, at its heart is an immune deficiency/failure disease, one that can often be corrected by proper immune health and lifestyle. I have a feeling autism’s increase is a longterm effect of diet and lifestyle issues, possibly affecting things over a long periond of time, possibly multiple generations. Also, there is the factor of improved medicine making up for health issues allowing life and reproduction in spite of health issues that, in nature, would not pass on or would not lead to living offspring.

Because there is so much about this in the USA we don’t realize that the “Autism Epidemic” is world wide. When the first real studies were being compiled they found similar “rates” of occurrence around the world. Vastly different cultures, genetic codes, diets, lifestyles, etc.

The genetic link found to date is a flaw in the genetic code that causes the brain to stop growing under “normal” development. Children with Autism have brains that continue to grow, which apparently messes up some of the “normal” neurological processes.

The good news is that intensive research is increasing so we will eventually start getting a better picture of what it is.

“Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'” Mark Twain

Well I ain’t hardly that stupid. Not only that, I’ve had just about enough of the half-truths and outright lies our government seems to live on these days. I am sick of it.

It’s just like listening to Obama harp on and on about the richest Americans paying their “fair share” of taxes. When the actual truth of the matter is that the well off and the rich are the only ones paying taxes at all. And the fact that half of America pays no taxes at all, and the fact that the illegals pay no taxes but receive government services, and the fact that the Soros’ and the GE’s of America pay no taxes at all is overlooked or outright ignored.

The times of the divisive politics and rhetoric of the Democratic/Progressive/Socialist Liberals needs to stop. The blame Bush and Tea Party bulldookey needs to stop.

WE NEED A DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT! WE NEED A NEW PRESIDENT! WE NEED A RENEWED AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s August 2012. President Obama’s reelection is most uncertain. He continues to lambast the just say no Republicans in Boehner’s House but the reality is they have passed bill after bill to fix the fiscal mess only to see them die in Democrat Reid’s Senate. The public is not buying it. Drastic action is needed. A crisis is required.
On September 18th, the Cubs are 2 games in front of the hated Mets and within a half game of clinching the division. This could be miracle day. Please God do not let 1969 repeat itself. A single engine plane dips low over Wrigley Field. The engine is sputtering, there must be something wrong. White smoke seems to be coming from the cowling. Is it on fire? The plane circles ever lower and more smoke appears. Finally the engine dies and the plane nose dives into the outfield bleachers. The results are gruesome as the bleacher bums were out in force anticipating a victory. Fire trucks, ambulances, police arrive shortly. Twenty dead, thirty injured. It is a terrible tragedy played out in front of 39,000+ spectators and a million on TV. The game is called off but the big question in Chicago is can the Cubs shake the bad luck and move on to the play offs. If it’s not a goat or an interfering fan it is something else. Not a baby boomer lives who has seen the Cubs in a World Series. The city morns. Mayor Emanuel, who was at the game, calls for an investigation.
Thirty-six hours after the crash, a sixty-three year old man checks into an ER in Cicero. He has a fever and flu like symptoms. Two hours later, a child is brought into Chicago General with the flu. One hour later a first responder checks into CG with the same symptoms. More start arriving at hospitals in the area. All attended the game. Within 40 hours the first victim is dead. More follow. The CDC arrives quickly and starts an investigation into the outbreak. It is an unknown strain of plague. Soon the hospitals are overcrowded with fans who were at the game. Mayor Emanuel dies on September 25th. Family members who were not at the game also start showing symptoms. The contagion is spreading. Cook County is quarantined but many outlying counties also have cases as the Cubs draw from a wide area. This is a deliberate attack.
President Obama calls for immediate and rapid investigations by Homeland Security. It is quickly learned that the pilot is a Pakistani man, a US citizen with Islamic fundamentalist ties from Detroit. He has been in communication with terrorist cells in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon. The Iraq link is the most important since the contacts there were former scientists in Hussein’s WMD programs. Action is called for. The source of the plaque strain is tracked back to a site in Syria.
Within a week of the crash, the death toll climbs to over a thousand, with 15,000 new cases. It’s an epidemic. President Obama closes down all travel into and out of the Midwest, isolating all states that border Illinois. Only properly equipped military vehicles are allowed into the quarantined area. The death toll will rise for another two weeks before the quarantine and other contagion prevention methods check the spread. It will be four months before the last case is diagnosed and another two months before the quarantine is lifted. The final death total stands at 57,243 souls.
Americans are furious and like the aftermath of 9/11, flags and anger are running high. Calls for immediate action are on the front pages of every newspaper in the country. President Obama calls in the generals and decides to strike at the Syrian source with cruise missiles and drones. The CIA is tasked with hunting down and killing the Iraqis and other terrorists involved. All available methods are to be used. To hell with playing nice, this is war.
On the home front President Obama declares an emergency and calls off the November election since large crowds are a danger to spreading the contagion. Furthermore, those in the Midwest are under restricted travel enforced by martial law which makes holding an election extremely difficult. The election will be rescheduled when it is safe for people to gather together in large crowds. Man hunts are underway for anyone associated with the pilot. The FBI agents involved are not friendly and look for any excuse to invoke the Patriot Act. There are some whimpers from Libertarians that the election could/should still be held but these are quickly squashed by popular demand. The president has a blank check to ensure domestic tranquility and safety. Politically active websites that voice opinions counter to the government’s are shut down especially those that imply a wag the dog scenario. There will be no debate in times of mortal danger to America’s population. Even the House and Senate consent to the postponed elections. Rep. Paul objects strongly but is arrested. Habeas Corpus is suspended. When Sen. Paul also objects, he too is arrested. Others get the message and remain quiet.
The NTSB agents investigating the accident are initially confused by some of the evidence they find at the crash site. There seems to be some extra computer and video equipment with cables that may have linked it to the flight controls. They find dismembered parts of the pilot but cannot determine if he was alive or dead at the time of the crash. Top FBI officials, including Eric Holder, order the NTSB to cease their investigation and turn all evidence of a crime over to Homeland Security. Hints of the unusual equipment leak to the press, but the information is not printed or released to the public. There must be no question that this is a terrorist act by a lone man with links to overseas terror groups.
As a result of the quarantine, the US economy is in shambles. Farmers cannot get the fuel and supplies they need to harvest their crops. What crops are harvested cannot reach market. The Midwest has entered a depression. By executive orders, President Obama freezes wages, prices, and starts rationing many commodities. By November, no one is concerned about the indefinitely postponed elections. Government expenses are high to cover the disaster, tax revenues are substantially down. Hence, the FED turns on the presses.
After the attacks on Syria the world holds its collective breath. Will the Arab world respond? There is much rhetoric from the Ahmadinejad but takes no action. He promises the American devil will pay for this outrage. President Assad sounds off and takes his case to the UN which as usual condemns the US but does nothing. Behind the scene weapons are moved into Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. Syria moves troops closer to Lebanon but avoids the Israeli border. Egypt also objects. They too seem to be preparing for trouble. Tensions mount in the early months of 2013.
By late spring, more US citizens are calling for rescheduling of the election. President Obama relents and schedules it for September 18th, the one year anniversary of the attack. On July 3rd, just before going on vacation, Obama issues a blanket pardon and amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the country. Any immigrant here more than five years can report to the nearest courthouse, take an oath of allegiance to the US and gain citizenship with full voting rights immediately. Barrack calls it the second emancipation. His reelection is ensured.
With the economy still reeling from the quarantine, Congress relents to Obama’s demands and raises marginal tax rates to 75% for all incomes over $1M. This covers both earned and unearned income. Corporate tax rates are raised to 45%. There is much grumbling but everyone must contribute what they can in this emergency. It is only fair as there are many going without. Civil unrest is rampant especially in the Midwest which is hardest hit and still under martial law. It is easily controlled by the military.
After the election, the freshly re-inaugurated President Obama quietly puts out a request to his supporters. He needs a civilian security force. The SEIU, other unions, former immigrants, Black Panthers, Acorn, and just plain concerned citizens start forming local brigades. They call themselves the New Minute Men (NM2). Multicolored uniform shirts are issued, black, brown, white, red, and blue with shoulder patches that mimic Obama’s election logo. At first they just march through the streets intimidating any citizens that can be easily cowed.

Isn’t that scary? And they call us Conspiracy Theorists for saying such things even though they are happening right in front of us every day. That man didn’t sayone thing that I didn’t already know. The Civilian Security forces. The kowtowing to the U.N. on gun control. making American citizens subject to U.N.law. These things are common knowledge if you’ve just watched the news and read a little. Some of the crap in the Obamacare Law have nothing to do with Healthcare. And most folks just rock along in their little fantasy world, unknowing and uncaring, partly because they don’t believe it can happen here. Well wake up morons! It not only CAN happen here, it IS happening here!

I seem to recall that either the banking bill or the healthcare bill had access to individual bank accounts in it. Also the stimulus bill funded he national healthcare database. So doctor-patient privilege is a thing of the past as they will hold the keys to all the records. The intrusiveness of big government is growing exponentially. My brother went through airport security recently and basically had to strip, shoes, belt shirt, etc. Some GIs in uniform were also in line. They had to remove their boots and all insignia and patches from their uniforms and more. They were not happy campers. Makes you want to take the train but then they are planning on securing them as well…..Papers please!

For all we know, this site is being watched as well. We are such subversives.

Disturbing – because we are Cub fans and live in the Midwest – but mostly because I could see it happening. Funny, a book like “1984” doesn’t seem so far fetched as it once did. It was intense reading “Hunger Games” because I could almost envision that future for my (someday!) grandkids. Scary times.

I wrote this several months ago prior to the OWS protests. There is more to the story as it describes the Balkanization of the country over about 20 years. It is basically an outline of what could be a Tom Clancy style novel. Clancy foretold using airplanes as WMDs. He also foretold the use of nuclear and biological weapons. However, he has stayed away from it being domestic in origin. This may be too political for him.

I was bored when I wrote it and was just letting my imagination run wild. It needs a lot of research and detail added based upon the actions of the current administration. It would take a major catastrophic event to trigger wide spread implementation of martial law and suspension of elections. A faked outside attack using biological or radiation weapons with long lasting health implications would fit the requirement. I am generally not a conspiracy buff because they mostly take too much coordination and too many people to keep it secret. However, if the initial event is kept small in size but large in impact, it would make the coverup feasible. We have already seen how the DOJ and others can wield power to suit the political goals of the administration. GIs are subversives, Black Panthers are benign despite intimidating voters of putting rewards on peoples heads.

Mostly I think O will stand for re-election and will leave office if defeated like 42 other individuals have. However, there is a nagging fear that he could change the normal quadrennial event, either by postponement or by outright theft of the election.

The last game I saw at Wrigley was between Don Drysdale and Fergie Jenkins in July or Aug. ’69. Drysdale won 1-0. It was the last game Don pitched. The Cubs were in 1st place. Leo Durocher had skipped out to go to WI to get married. I then moved to Penn State and had to listen to the NY media and the amazing Mets as they beat the Cubs in the final month for the pennant. I have hated the Mets ever since. Personally, I would like to see the Cubs play in one World Series in my lifetime.

It just seemed like a good thread to run through the story. I haven’t decided yet if they will eventually play in the series nor have I decided yet how the story will end, i.e. will the country heal and come back to Constitutional government. But then I don’t think any of us know that answer.

Come on – new young owner, manager. They are headed in the right direction. Still have expensive mistakes on the team like Soriano, but farm system is producing as well. Won’t happen overnight but the Cubs fans are patient and optimistic!!! (To admit to the alternative is just too painful!)

Under what Constitutional power can Obama just waive away an act of
Congress?

Obama Overrides Congress in Order to Send $192 Billion to Palestinian Authority

Daniel Doherty

Daniel Doherty
Web Editor, Townhall.com

Apr 28, 2012 08:30 PM EST

I suspect President Obama and his underlings are really hoping this late night maneuver goes unnoticed.

US President Barack Obama has lifted a ban on financial aid to the Palestinian Authority. Obama stated that the aid was “important to the security interests of the United States.”

The US Congress froze a $192 million aid package to the Palestinian Authority after its president, Mahmoud Abbas, defied US pressure and sought to attain UN endorsement of Palestinian statehood last September. The presidential waiver means that aid can now be delivered.

Ed Morrissey over at HotAir gives a more harrowing explanation for why Congress cut the funding in the first place.

Congress deliberately froze those funds, and not just because of the statehood demand through UNESCO. Hamas, a terrorist organization, reconciled with Fatah and has rejoined the PA, which means we’re putting almost $200 million into the hands of a terrorist organization. The language of the Palestinian Accountability Act could not be clearer: “[N]o funds available to any United States Government department or agency … may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.” Obama literally waived that statutory language off yesterday afternoon.

So how will Congress react? I can’t imagine leaders in the House and Senate were pleased to learn that President Obama – with a stroke of his pen – bypassed the legislative branch to fund an organization that sponsors terrorism and does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. More to the point, though, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama have a less-than-friendly working relationship. One can’t help but wonder how the president’s shocking decision to provide financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority will be interpreted by Israel. Still, now that the President of the United States is planning on giving away $192 billion dollars to a terrorist organization that threatens the national security interests of our closest, and only democratic, ally in the Middle East, the U.S.-Israeli relationship is about to get much more complicated.

There is no limit to the arrogance and outright gall to which this moron will stoop too. They should have impeached him a year or so ago. But i’m sure his Democratic lapdogs in Congress wouldn’t allow it. Grounds would be his usupation of authority, and failure to protect, uphold and defend the Constitution!

Google Chairman Schools Krugman: ‘Surely You’re Not Arguing Government Should Hire All the Unemployed People’

By Noel Sheppard | April 29, 2012 | 12:51

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt gave a much-needed economics lesson to New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman on ABC’s This Week Sunday.

During a lengthy discussion about liberal and conservative views on how to stimulate the currently soft recovery, Schmidt – a known Barack Obama supporter – marvelously said to his left-leaning co-panelist, “Surely you’re not arguing that the government should hire all the unemployed people” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

ERIC SCHMIDT, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN GOOGLE: This perpetual argument over taxes is simply a lever to try to do the right thing. It’s obvious what the right thing is. And we end up talking about the wrong thing. The right thing is to get people employed in jobs that matter.

CARLY FIORINA, FORMER HEWLETT PACKARD CEO: Right.

SCHMIDT: And how do you do that? It’s done largely by the private sector, largely with intelligent regulation and not too much of it. Let’s figure out a way to get people being hired by business that solve problems. It will happen.

Probably like you, I was shocked to hear Schmidt say creating jobs is done “largely by the private sector, largely with intelligent regulation and not too much of it.” Not surprisingly, so was Krugman:

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Yes, but we — I mean — yes, private sector is important. And we want the private sector — but the private sector is almost back to its employment as of January of 2009. Where we’re really hurting is —

SCHMIDT: Well, surely you’re not arguing that the government should hire all the unemployed people.

Krugman was clearly taken aback by this:

KRUGMAN: No, I’m saying that the government should actually re-hire the 300,000 school teachers who have been laid off because of — because of misplaced austerity …

Krugman would say that, but exactly how does that get people other than school teachers back to work? Once again, Schmidt saw through the hypocrisy:

SCHMIDT: That number won’t fix the problem I’m talking about. If you look at forward growth in our citizen rate, they will be hired by private businesses, primarily small businesses.

Indeed, but Krugman – ever the government is the solution advocate – fought back:

KRUGMAN: But we — we — but the most important thing is —

FIORINA: Look at the unemployment among young people.

KRUGMAN: The most important thing right now is to end the depression we’re in.

SCHMIDT: But the easiest way to solve — the easy way to do the 300,000 is to do government block grants. I’ve never understood why government can’t do one-time grants. The government basically funds things, but then they become perpetual. It would be relatively easy when government funding is down to essentially create that —
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Schmidt here was again advocating a Republican position. GOP governors want block grants for Medicaid as an example.

But the Left wasn’t done trying to defend the indefensible. Former Democratic Michigan Governor turned Current TV host Jennifer Granholm stepped up to the plate:

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, FORMER DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR FROM MICHIGAN : Isn’t’ that what the Recovery Act is?

SCHMIDT: It was. But if you look at the Recovery Act, which I supported, much of that went to stuff which is now structurally part of the base.

Indeed, and that’s one of the reasons Republicans fought so strongly against it because they realized much of the program was structurally permanent rather than the needed short-term stimulus.

Makes you wonder if after watching Obama and the Democrats in action since January 2009 the left-leaning Schmidt has lost that loving feeling for Hope and Change.

Interesting tidbit from the Halls of Hypocrisy: This administration has been prosectuingCIA and other intelligence individuals, intenionally leaking names of CIA agents, circumventing Congress in funding issues with the CIA and revealing the names of the financeadministrators, eliminating interrogation techniques, prosecuting military leaders and individuals for violating civil rights on a battlefield, etc.etc…….and now they are wondering why there are no prisoners? The taking of prisoners, both military and covertly has dropped significantly since the Obama Administration has taken over………As one senior member of the CIA said, if you take no prisoners, you do not have to worry about reading them rights, feeding them, guarding them, etc. The Obama Administration is aghast at the fact that intelligence gathering has almost stopped as no one is being captured for interrogation.

Sigh………they don’t get it. They just do not know how to defend a Nation.

I wonder some times what their deal is-do they want people to come together and accept our differences or do they just want us to become a country that has absolutely no CLASS. I certainly don’t want old Dan talking to my children about anything-and it has nothing to do with the fact that he’s gay. He’s worse than Bill Maher and that’s saying a lot.

Your right, I don’t really wonder. I know they want to support the most offensive people they can find-so that we all, will be so busy being offended, we will not listen to anything they say. But I do wonder why the people on the left support these loud mouth, obnoxious people-they do not help their cause-they hurt it.

Oh, sorry, Good Morning everyone……and a special good morning to Buck,the Walla Man and soon to be sleep deprived father,…..had a good friend just get back from New York City……had a meal at the Russian Tea Room? (sic)………….wanted a simple T-Bone Steak dinner…..(there was none to be found except for a strange look when the waiter asked, “what is a T Bone”) So he settled for a New York strip (a pansy steak that had to be taken back because he does not eat meat that is still cold in the center),and something called Truffled mashed potato? THEN…..was asked what kind of steak sauce? STEAK SAUCE? After the meal, he could not recognize the name of any dessert and wanted a simple piece of pie. Oops…..no pie…..so he ordered something that had cherries in it….(passed out at the $18 price for a friggin cherry)…..to top it off, he wanted a simple Marguerita……they brought him something that had Vodka in it…..no, he said, I want a top shelf Marguerita……and if they did not have that, a simple shot of Don Julio’s Tequila. He was informed that this was a Russian Tea Room and everything was vodka….except for some foo foo drinks.

You would think that was enough for a Texan…..when a well dressed female walked up and asked him if the hat he was wearing was a “Ten Gallon Hat”, and asked if he was from Texas ( His tailored Western suit and boots gave him away, I am sure ) …..to which he tipped his hat to her and answered, ” No Maam, I am from Texas and only Hollywood wannabe;s wear ten gallon hats”…..she gave him an up and down look and introduced herself as Keira Knightly…( I did not know who that was until last night )… He did say she was a “looker”…..and that her date took some sort of offense at the term “Hollywood Wannabe”……

Ah the Russian Tea Room — fancy-ish type place, probably known more for its history than for its food, and especially not where you go for a real steak. Tell him to give me a call next time he’s in NYC. I’ll make sure he’s well fed with a nice big steak (no steak sauce, of course) and a good old fashioned slice of pie for dessert.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall
make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply
equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law
that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to
the citizens of the United States .”

No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the
U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get
50% of their pay on retirement. While Politicians hold their political positions
in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and
receive full-pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.

And for you Vietnam Veterans…..After more than 40 years, the Viet Nam Veterans of the United States of America have raised a phenomenal amount of money to memorialize another one of Hollywood’s loyal American citizens, who went out of her way to aid and abet the enemy and congratulate them on their treatment of U. S. POW’s. Be sure to stop in and pay your respects!

It is a beautiful memorial….a bright blue plastic porta-potty inscribed with a plaque on the door ” Vietnam Veterans Jane Fonda Memorial Urinal. Please pause and remember”. It is located at Fort Hood, Texas outside the entrance to the post recreation center.

A few things Obama mentioned at the correspondent’s dinner the other night. I’m not seeing the humor in any of it. We learned in the first campaign that he tells us exactly what he’s going to do ahead of time..we just don’t think he’s serious. Check some of these out with that in mind.

My mother was born in Kansas. My father was born in Kenya. And I was born, of course, in Hawaii. (Obama winks, followed by laughter and applause.)

Four years ago, I was locked in a brutal primary battle with Hillary Clinton. Four years later, she won’t stop drunk-texting me from Cartagena.

What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? A pit bull is delicious. (Laughter and applause.) A little soy sauce. (Laughter.)

Now, if I do win a second term as President, let me just say something to all the — (applause) — let me just say something to all my conspiracy-oriented friends on the right who think I’m planning to unleash some secret agenda: You’re absolutely right. (Laughter.)

In my first term, we passed health care reform; in my second term, I guess I’ll pass it again

And just to set the record straight, I really do enjoy attending these dinners. In fact, I had a lot more material prepared, but I have to get the Secret Service home in time for their new curfew.

…..and speaking of curfew for the Secret Service…..

I hear we’re sending chaperones along for the ride now too! INSANE! The top security force of the POTUS needs babysitters!. Let’s send DSW, Hillary ,& Big Sis…that should do it!

Meh. Its the WH Correspondent’s Dinner. This happens every year, and every year there is faux outrage over some of the jokes. I still remember how pissed I personally was with Bush’s ‘joke’ about searching for WMD’s in his office. But, it is what it is…context matters and it really isn’t something to get riled up about.

Not totally persuaded by his arms argument- but his argument on the specifics of the seaman and insurance seems pretty strong.

Founding Fathers Did Not Back Health Insurance Mandates
by Joe Lindsley
April 14, 2012

Debunking the latest pro-Obamacare myth

Obamacare supporters are really stretching to find Constitutional support. Like the public defender in My Cousin Vinnie, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli stumbled over his words before the Supreme Court as he struggled to find a way to defend President Obama’s signature power grab. And now, liberal scholars are even trying to cite those oft-maligned dead white males, the Founding Fathers, to justify the mandate that every American purchase health insurance.

Einer Elhauge in The New Republic argues that the first Congressses, which included Founding Fathers, passed two “individual mandates.” If true, this means that Obamacare has constitutional precedent.

But both of those “mandates” were either limited or explicitly Constitutionally justified–or not mandates at all. And it doesn’t take three days of umming and awwwing before the Supreme Court to explain.

In 1792, Elhauge writes, Congress required all able-bodied men to buy firearms (Are liberals so attached to Obamacare that they are willing to argue that not only do we have the right to bear arms but the government can require us to buy guns?!).

But this mandate wasn’t based on some expansive reading of the Commerce clause. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Ordering Americans to purchase firearms to be ready to defend themselves and their nation is pretty essential to arming and organizing a civilian militia. You don’t need any verbal gymnastics to justify that.

Second, Elhauge notes that in 1790 Congress mandated that ship owners purchase medical insurance for their seamen. He claims this is a knockdown justification for Obamacare’s individual mandate.

But seamen were engaged in foreign commerce, thus subject to regulation under the Commerce clause power: a specific industry subject to specific regulation. You don’t have to be in that industry. There is a limiting principle—a principle that even Obama-appointed Justice Sonio Sotomayor said was required to justify Obamacare. There is not a limiting principle to “all Americans must purchase something.”

Obamacare imposes a mandate on Americans as a condition of breathing. What is the government going to tell us? You don’t have to be alive? But for the grace of Government go we?

But there’s more. Congress did not actually mandate that ship owners provide health insurance. They imposed a 20 cent per month tax on seamen’s wages. That revenue was used to fund medical care for seamen. No one was required to buy anything. Congress had the power to impose taxes, not to compel purchases.

In the humble spirit of all those fact checking websites, I declare Einer Elhauge to be “just plain wrong.” Obamacare is an egregious violation of the Constitution, which is maybe why a majority of Americans want it repealed

Sorry VH, but I don’t think you can just push aside Elhauge’s arguments so simply.

Re: mandating the purchase of guns — true, this was not ordered pursuant to the commerce clause, but it still does demonstrate some precedence in requiring individuals to purchase something. In other words, the founders believed that it was proper for the federal government to require individuals to purchase a product as part of another valid realm of federal regulation (in this case, guns and regulating a militia, respectively). There is no reason why the same can’t be true under Obamacare – -the federal government is forcing individuals to purchase something (insurance) as part of another valid realm of federal regulation (health care under the commerce clause).

Re: insurance — I don’t know all of the ins and outs of either the 1790 mandate on employers nor the 1798 individual mandate, and I will concede that there is some room to distinguish these from today’s mandate on all individuals, but this doesn’t negate the fact that the founders explicitly envisioned the ability of the federal government to mandate individuals to purchase insurance in certain respects.

I have seen these examples before, and responded to them. Only to be called an idiot.

But here is the situation. These examples involve what Congress saw as its authority under the regulation of the “militia” and maritime laws. Note the insurance and Govt hospital care was limited to “sailors”. The same authority was later used to establish the VA Hospitals.

They did NOT use the Commerce Clause as their authority. But thanks to Ms. Pelosi, there is no doubt they relied on the “commerce clause” for the “Affordable Care Act”.

This is because we have lost understanding of what “Commerce” meant. Thanks to those who have tried to impose their view of “living document” the term commerce has been changed to mean “any commercial activity”.

In fact, Insurance would not have been viewed as “Commerce” by legal minds of the Founding Era.

So what we have here is the typical Progressive propaganda attempt to obfuscate reality/truth to justify their actions.

But as “Candidate JAC” I must point out that Obama Care is nothing but a Trojan Horse anyway and must be abolished. It solves no real problems and will in fact create many others.

I would immediately convene and participate in a national meeting of Doctors and other medical professionals in order to determine the ACTUAL causes of increasing medical costs.

“Some precedence” ???????- that kind of thought process has expanded the power of the government to crazy levels. Let’s narrow that down too the right question, which is, why did they allow it ? From reading the courts questions about the mandate-the two areas of contention seem to be a matter of whether or not it is a tax, questions about it’s relationship to commerce and what is the limiting power. The man’s argument on the seaman issue clearly points out that it was a tax, that they were involved in foreign commerce and what the limiting powers were. We all know the government can force us to buy insurance-but there are rules that limit their ability to do so-I don’t see any limiting power when it comes to the Obamacare mandate)

VH, true, with the seaman issue, those individuals were already participating in foreign commerce (by way of their profession), but that is not the same as being engaged in commerce directly related to the health care industry. By that logic, the federal government can force seamen to do or buy absolutely anything under the sun! Do you agree with that interpretation of federal authority?

“We all know the government can force us to buy insurance…” — so you agree that the individual mandate is constitutional then?? 🙂

_________________

JAC,

I do remember you getting into these elements of precedence and how they apply at some point in the past, but don’t recall the substance of your arguments. As I said to VH, I agree there is a difference here in relying on the commerce clause as opposed to some other constitutional provision. However, I side with Elhauge in his view that, despite this distinction, it still creates the precedence for the federal government to require individuals to purchase something as part of their regulation of another constitutional realm.

But VH, does it really matter whether the power to force individuals to purchase something stems from Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate the health care industry (via commerce clause) or Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate a militia? My point is that, if it is proper for Congress to provide for a purchasing mandate, then it is proper for Congress to provide for a purchasing mandate…so long as said purchasing mandate is directly related to the regulation of a valid realm.

Yes, it matters-limits on POWER matters-they didn’t make these sailors buy insurance-they taxed them and then supplied them with medical care. These mandates force me to buy or be fined-at the end of the process, unless I purchase insurance-I get nothing but a bill for nothing. If I do buy insurance they have no revenue-not a tax-different idea-different consequences-something new.

I question whether or not the Federal government has the right to do 90 % of the things they do-but providing for defense is one of their main Constitutional duties.

This looks like it would be interesting to discuss-I see some major dangers associated with this idea but I also figure there are lots of drugs that don’t need to be prescription. But high blood pressure and diabeties -figure one needs to be under a physicians care to determine what medicines and amount they need or we will just have a lot of really sick, stoke impaired or dead people.

In a move that could help the government trim its burgeoning health care costs, the Food and Drug Administration may soon permit Americans to obtain some drugs used to treat conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes without obtaining a prescription.

The FDA says over-the-counter distribution would let patients get drugs for many common conditions without the time and expense of visiting a doctor, but medical providers call the change medically unsound and note that it also may mean that insurance no longer will pay for the drugs.

“The problem is medicine is just not that simple,” said Dr. Matthew Mintz, an internist at George Washington University Hospital. “You can’t just follow rules and weigh all the pros and cons. It needs to be individualized.”

Under the changes that the agency is considering, patients could diagnose their ailments by answering questions online or at a pharmacy kiosk in order to buy current prescription-only drugs for conditions such as high cholesterol, certain infections, migraine headaches, asthma or allergies.

By removing the prescription requirement from popular drugs, the Obama administration could ease financial pressures on the overburdened Medicare system by paying for fewer doctor visits and possibly opening the door to make seniors pay a larger share of the cost of their medications.

The change could have mixed results for non-Medicare patients. Although they may not have to visit a doctor as often, they could have to dish out more money for medications because most insurance companies don’t cover over-the-counter drugs.

“We would expect that out-of-pocket costs for insured individuals, including those covered by Medicare, would be increased for drugs that are switched from prescription to OTC status,” said Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, who testified last month on behalf of the American Medical Association in an FDA-held public hearing.

Pharmacists and doctors have lined up on opposite sides of the issue. Often trying to combat a public perception that downplays their medical training, pharmacists embrace the notion that they should be able to dole out medication for patients’ chronic conditions without making them go through a doctor.

“We think it’s a great development for everybody — for pharmacists, for patients and the whole health care system,” said Brian Gallagher, a lobbyist for the American Pharmacists Association. “The way we look at it is there are a lot of people out there with chronic conditions that are undertreated and this would enable the pharmacists to redirect these undertreated people back into the health care system.”

Medical providers urged caution, saying the government should not try to cut health care costs by cutting out doctors.

“What the government via the FDA has decided to do is just bypass the expensive doctor and to satisfy some safety concerns of letting people just pick out their medications is make sure they have to get counsel by the pharmacists,” Dr. Mintz said. “I believe there is value to using pharmacists, but not at the expense of primary care.”

Although the FDA says more patients will be likely to obtain the drugs they need under the proposed model, Dr. Fryhofer questioned whether the agency has sufficiently proved that.

“The FDA has not offered any evidence establishing that it is safe, or patient outcomes are improved, when patients with hypertension, [high cholesterol], asthma or migraine headaches self-diagnose and manage these (or other) serious chronic medical conditions on their own,” she said.

Comments on the proposal are due by May 7.

FDA spokeswoman Erica Jefferson said the agency will issue a decision sometime after that but didn’t offer a more specific time frame.

“The agency is still reviewing the public comments and will make a determination on the best path forward once this has been completed,” she said.

Maybe it’s just a pathway to make all abortion drugs available without a prescription 🙂 But none the less-I don’t see a need for a prescription for allergy medicine or even the pill once a doctor has proscribed it-if there is a problem the patient should be smart enough to return to the doctor. I agree that there are far too many drugs that are prescription when there really isn’t any reason for them to be prescription.

As far as out of pocket expense-I figure there is some truth to this-but wouldn’t the price go down if it was sold over the counter-and the cost would also be less if people weren’t constantly going back to the doctor simply to get a prescription refilled.

Help me out here. The O campaign puts out an ad on OBL, supposedly to tout O’s toughness and decisiveness, or something. It’s moderated by Clinton, who opted not to get OBL when he had the chance. The memos are now out indicating it was more Panetta than Obama that pushed for this mission. So O, reluctantly it appears, says yes to the mission, must get hauled in from the golf course to take a photo op while said mission is underway, and now they’re touting it as HIS big victory?!? And Romney would never have done this (trying to make fact a non-provable statement, ie, created and saved jobs). WTH? Comical? Desperation?

The mandate to purchase guns is the simplest to deal with, you just want to confuse the issue.

Congress had the authority to “arm” the militia. This means they have the authority to determine how to best “arm” the militia.

They decided to have everyone of militia age purchase their own musket and a limited amount of ammo, flint, powder. If called up Congress would then pay for “further” supplies as needed.

This is a very LIMITED and RESTRICTED power.

You are simply creating a false argument in claiming a “power to force purchase of something to carry out general provisions”. This is not a “general provision or authority.” It was in fact a specific “enumerated” authority. The required purchase of weapons was already part of accepted practice, among many states.

Now please note that all attempts to prove the Founder’s willingness to use Commerce to force purchase of goods or services has only these two examples. NO OTHER EXAMPLES. If this was so “accepted” why did they not mandate numerous other types of “purchases”.

The argument presented is a False Argument as I see it. The examples are specific, but you are attempting to expand this to a general “accepted” concept. I stand by my claim that the Framers would have laughed and been repulsed by such a notion that Congress has the authority to Force private citizens into contracts with other citizens or businesses under authority of the Commerce Clause. Well that is all except maybe Hamilton.

Another thing that should be mentioned. Those who immediately tried to pass laws under the new Constitution were NOT all the same people who wrote, passed, defended and then ratified the new Constitution. So to use Congressional action after 1787 as “proof” of the Founders/Framers view on its meaning is an erroneous argument itself. And of course there is the fact that some, like Hamilton, argued one way while actually hoping for something else.

Madison himself argued against the broad interpretation of Commerce and Taxation. Yet you see Congress immediately trying to expand the authority.

I see where you are going with this JAC, but I don’t feel I’m confusing the issue. Congress, pursuant to its authority to regulate a militia, mandated that all individuals purchase a gun. Here, Congress, pursuant to its authority to regulate the health care industry vis-a-vis the commerce clause, mandated that all individuals purchase insurance. True, the latter can be said to be a step further removed, but I don’t think that in and of itself is sufficient to render the action unconstitutional.

I also find it very interesting that you would argue congressional action post 1787 is not indicative of original intent. We are not talking about 20 or 30 years after the fact. We are talking about Congressional action in 1790 (3 years) and 1792 (5 years). I would say this is pretty indicative of what the Founders could have envisioned as proper Congressional action. Does it prove it beyond a shadow of the doubt? No. But it sure is compelling evidence. More to the point, the fact that the Founders themselves disagreed, as you point out, only serves to demonstrate the fallacy of the original intent argument to begin with.

Here is the error in the argument you make: “Congress, pursuant to its authority to regulate a militia, mandated that all individuals purchase a gun.”

It is in essence the same mistake the author you cited makes, as well as others who have tried to make this point.

You see here is the proper construction of the proposition: “Congress, pursuant to its authority to ARM a militia, mandated that all individuals purchase a gun.”

Now you do not get the answer you desire when you try to expand this “Constitutional Concept” to other authorities. Not only because the word ARM is so specific but it is integrally linked to the word MILITIA. The MILITIA was in fact the Citizenry of each state. This was true before the Constitution and was codified as part of law in the document.

COMMERCE on the other hand is broader, as is the word REGULATE. So it is a FALSE argument to claim that an action so specifically authorized and limited, to arming the militia, creates a “GENERAL” concept applicable to ALL authorities granted to Congress.

But now for some additional information, since you and the author wish to use this as PRECEDENT to rationalize Obama Care. The Militia Law did not impose any penalty or mechanism for enforcement by the Federal Govt. It left that up to the States. A concept totally consistent with the ORIGINAL INTENT of the document. And by the way, all the States did not enforce the law equally. Some were harsh and others did nothing because the law was viewed to violate certain “personal liberty”. Washington tried to combat this complacency by INVOKING PATRIOTISM, DUTY, and COURAGE (or lack thereof) to “guilt trip” everyone into complying. You see, politicians haven’t changed all that much in over 200 years, have they.

Now expand that to the National Health Insurance issue. Putting aside my belief that Health Insurance is NOT Commerce, the Congress could have passed a law requiring that Insurance Companies provide certain coverage as a minimum throughout the country. Enforcement of those requirements would have been left to the States. I would bet good money that such an action would have been found CONSTITUTIONAL. Even though Congress had historically deferred regulation of Health Insurance to the States entirely. Which of course raises another question of PRECEDENT and INTENT that goes against your argument on the health care bill in general. But Scalia, himself, helped write the rational for overturning such precedent in order to rationalize Federal action when it suits him, and others.

Got to run young one to the Orthodontist so you have time to ponder this before responding. I also want to address your attack on “original intent” but for now let me just say that your argument against it would equally negate the “make it say whatever you want” theory (living document) as well. 🙂

The same conclusion can be drawn from the textual statement of congressional authority to ARM the militia. That can be done in many ways (such as taxing individuals and providing guns). There is nothing in the constitution itself that states that congress has the explicit authority to provide for a purchasing mandate.

As a legal argument against an act of Congress, “it’s unprecedented” does not carry all that much weight. After all, every first use of a legitimate congressional power was obviously without precedent. And there is, in the nature of things, no reason that such a first instance could not occur many years after the power itself was called into being by the Constitution.

So when the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, now at issue in the Obamacare case before the Supreme Court, is denounced as unprecedented, that’s hardly a slam-dunk argument. It’s just the beginning of one. What one must show is that the unprecedented mandate is also improper — an illegitimate claim of authority under the Constitution. “It’s unprecedented” can add some rhetorical oomph to the more important claim of illegitimacy, since a plausible reason why no earlier Congress attempted such a mandate is that it would have been understood to reach too far.

By the same token, the ability to say “but there is a precedent!” is a kind of Holy Grail for Obamacare’s defenders. Historic enactments that can be analogized to the individual mandate are valuable currency in a legal system that is based on precedent. Better still if these historic acts went unchallenged in their day. And best of all if they date from the generation of the Founders themselves — when the earliest Congresses and presidencies were filled by men who had participated in writing, ratifying, or otherwise arguing about the creation and meaning of the brand-new Constitution.

Advertisement
So Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge must feel mighty pleased with himself for having offered three examples of “mandates” from the first decade of the Constitution’s existence. In a New Republic article, Elhauge sketches these three examples as follows:

“In 1790, the very first Congress — which incidentally included 20 framers — passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that shipowners buy medical insurance for their seamen.” President George Washington signed the act.

“In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms.” Washington signed this too.

In 1798, Congress “enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance.” President John Adams signed this act.

You wouldn’t know it from Elhauge’s TNR piece, but these three putative precedents for a “mandate” have been much discussed by legal scholars over the last couple of years, in the blizzard of commentary on Obamacare. When some of the scholars involved in these discussions criticized his retread examples (see comments by Randy Barnett and Philip Hamburger), Elhauge doubled down in TNR responses (here and here).

Barnett and Hamburger, for the most part, mix it up with Elhauge over the finer points of constitutional interpretation: whether the 1798 act came under the Commerce Clause or (as Hamburger argues) was an exercise of Congress’s power to provide for the Navy; whether the 1792 militia act’s “mandate” can really be called a “purchase mandate”; and whether a mandate under the militia power can serve as a precedent for a mandate under the commerce power. But the more damning indictment of Elhauge’s law-office history is that he grossly misdescribes the three statutes he claims as precedents for Obamacare’s mandate.

Take the 1790 and 1798 acts governing the merchant marine. The first one, enacted July 20, 1790 (“1 Stat. 131” is the citation in the U.S. Statutes at Large), Elhauge describes as requiring “that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen.” He refers to section 8 of the act. It requires that every American ship over a certain tonnage, going to sea in international commerce, “be provided with a chest of medicines, put up by some apothecary of known reputation, and accompanied by directions for administering the same.” It further requires that the medicines be annually inspected and freshly supplied when depleted or spoiled, and

in default of such medicine chest so provided and kept fit for use, the master or commander of such ship or vessel shall provide and pay for all such advice, medicine, or attendance of physicians, as any of the crew shall stand in need of in case of sickness, at every port or place where the ship or vessel may touch or trade at during the voyage, without any deduction from the wages of such sick seaman or mariner.

Before you say, “Wow, no deductible or co-pay for the sick seaman,” notice two things. First, this provision is a regulation of commerce in which someone is already engaged (the ships’ owners and masters, and the seamen), as many commentators have long since noted. (And Elhauge’s unpersuasive retort that everyone is also “in” the commerce of our health-care system was thoroughly covered in the Supreme Court argument.)

Advertisement
But second, the requirement that ships’ masters pay for medicines and physicians’ bills when sick sailors seek health care at ports of call is completely suspended if they simply keep a well-stocked medicine chest aboard ship. It takes a pretty wild flight of the imagination to describe this act as “mandating” the purchase of “health insurance” for sailors by their employers. If that’s so, then FAA requirements that a first-aid kit be kept amply stocked on all commercial passenger aircraft could be redescribed as a “mandate” that airlines “buy medical insurance for their passengers.”

Elhauge describes the second act concerning merchant seamen, enacted July 16, 1798 (1 Stat. 605), as “requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.” Wrong again. The act provides that the owner or master of an American ship, when his vessel puts into port from an overseas voyage, shall give the port “collector” (the federal tax man who collected tariffs) an accurate headcount of his crew, and for each month away from American shores pay the collector 20 cents a head, which he was “authorized to retain out of the wages” of the sailors. The funds so collected being sent to the U.S. treasury, the act authorized the president to direct the disbursement of the funds to hospitals in American port cities “for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen.” Any surplus funds not used for such immediate health-care needs were to be invested for the future building of “hospitals for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen.”

This was surely a benign and compassionate act, and might serve as a useful reminder that “welfare” and federal spending on health care have a long history. But in no sense can this act be described as an “individual mandate” that merchant seamen “buy hospital insurance.” It’s a payroll tax collected by shipowners from seamen’s wages for purposes of a federal spending program on caring for sick sailors. Elhauge may hope no one looks up this old statute, but the Obamacare mandate couldn’t be further from it — a requirement that individuals enter into a contractual, commercial arrangement with a private health-insurance provider. Only Elhauge’s slippery half-truth can conceal how far the cases are from being analogous.

Now to the final example, the Militia Act of May 8, 1792 (1 Stat. 271). This act famously required “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen” in each state, from 18 to 45 years of age, to “be enrolled in the militia” of his state. Each militiaman so enrolled was required “within six months” to “provide himself with a good musket or firelock” and other quite specific accoutrements of combat equipment. Was this a “purchase mandate” for every adult white male to buy a gun? Not necessarily, since one might own one already, borrow one from an exempted person, receive one as a gift, or even have one provided from a state armory.

And what about those persons “exempted from militia duty” (see Section 2 of the act)? In addition to specific categories of exempted status (such as government officials, postal workers, harbor pilots, and merchant seamen), the act further excluded from its requirements “all persons who now are or may hereafter be exempted by the laws of the respective states . . . notwithstanding their being” otherwise squarely within the demographic previously described.

This provision, along with the fact that the Militia Act carries no penalty for failure to arm oneself as it putatively requires, reveals the true intent of the legislation. It is an act for regularizing the formation of a nationally uniform militia system that remained under the control of the states, unless called into national service. (This intent is plain on the face of virtually every other provision of the act as well.) You were in the militia if you were free, white, male, 18 to 45, and your state said you were in the militia. If it said you weren’t, you weren’t. And since the act carried no criminal penalties, there was literally no way for it to be enforced by federal authorities, civilian or military.

Some “mandate” that is. If one credits Einer Elhauge, the federal government in 1792 was requiring — one would presume on pain of some penalty — “all able-bodied men to buy firearms.” A little care in reading the act demonstrates that once again, Elhauge just can’t describe his “precedent” accurately.

I really don’t understand your comment Buck-this whole conversation has been about -Are these past actions a “precedent” for Obamacare. I say we have proved that they are not-that those valid distinctions are what made these past laws Constitutional.. Now I suppose that doesn’t necessarily prove that Obamacare isn’t -but do you still stand by your claim that these examples show a precedent for the mandate used in Obamacare?

I don’t believe it matters anymore. Since Carter forgave the draft dodgers of Vietnam, they would NEVER be able to enforce it again. As for whether or not it is Constitutional, I don’t believe it is. I don’t remember anything in the Constitution saying that the Government can force you to serve in the military, in time of war or any other time. Of course, you know how it is these days. They can make it say whatever they WANT it to say.

I asked the question because I’m not sure -I know the SC said it was Constitutional. I know, I don’t really like the idea-It seems adverse to the idea of freedom but do they have the power under the authority to provide defense ????? If they can determine that all able bodied men must do anything-it seems like they would have the right to draft citizens. Guess I need to look up the arguments on why the SC said it was Constitutional.

Well, as I said above. I don’t think after the Carter pardons for all the draft dodgers, that they will EVER be able to enforce a draft. Especially since we elected one of them to be President a few years later.

There was a time no one would have dreamed of avoiding the draft unless they were cowards. But at Vietnam, they dodged not because of cowardice so much as they just were hippies or peaceniks, and in some cases just plain didn’t want to go.

And the ones who went when they were called were spit on and called baby killers when they got back. And some of the ones doing the namecalling and spitting are the very same ones who are all for abortion and against us being in Iraq and Afganistan now. Let me say I don’t want our troops over there either, but not for the same reason. I don’t want them there because Obama is turning it into another Vietnam. Send them there and then won’t let them fight or win. And as far as I am concerned, there’s not a single american life worth losing for those raghead American Haters. We should not only pull out the troops, but the money also and let them kill each other off.

Yup, completely Constitutional. And I completely agree with you that just because something is constitutional doesn’t mean its a good idea. Coincidentally this line of thought can also apply to Obamacare!

Such a simple explanation-the cost -and cost can have more meanings than just monetary.

WaPo’s Sargent Doesn’t Get Why Americans Reject Costs of Obamacare

by John Sexton 4 days ago 16 post a comment
Have you ever walked into a shop with a child and had them lead you around to all the things they are sure you desperately need?

Sometimes these are odd trinkets of no real interest, but occasionally they may suggest something genuinely appealing. You move closer to admire an item, perhaps even pick it up with a thought of bringing it home. But at some point in your perusal you do what children don’t–flip the thing over and check the price. The question isn’t whether you like it; it’s whether you like it that much.

I bring this up because liberals are still having a hard time understanding how people could be so fond of elements of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and yet so un-fond on the law as a whole and the individual mandate in particular. Case in point, this piece by the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent:

There’s no denying that public opinion did not turn around on health reform as many of us predicted it would. But Clifford Young, the managing director for Ipsos polling, has an interesting new piece up that argues that the questions surrounding public opinion on health reform are much more complicated than they first appear.

Young points to Ipsos numbers that find the individual provisions in the law still remain overwhelmingly popular. The upshot is that nine of the bill’s major provisions – from the ban on discrimination against people with preexisting conditions, to the creation of insurance exchanges, to the extension of insurance to young adults up to the age of 26 – are supported by anywhere from 67 percent to 87 percent of Americans.

The individual mandate, meanwhile, is what remains overwhelmingly unpopular, with only 35 percent supporting it.

Sargent spends the rest of his post wondering how to reconcile these facts and what it will mean for Democrats in the 2012 elections. But there’s no mystery here; at least I don’t think there is. People like all sorts of wonderful ideas for reforming health care, like having children on insurance policies up to age 26 and preventing preexisting conditions from playing a role in coverage. It sounds great. And then you flip the thing over and look at the price: individual mandate. Hmmmm–do I want it that much? Probably not.

Democrats are like children let loose in a shop. They have a great time picking out expensive gifts they are sure you’ll love, but when you get to the register you still have to swipe it on your own credit card. And, eventually, you’ll have to pay the bill.

You beat me to it, just finished watching. Can’t say RP did a great job, he let Krugman get by with several, to me, false statements like the cause of the depression. He did do well on his book, “End the Fed” does not call for doing away with the fed, but diminishing it’s role by allowing competition and tying it to a gold or silver standard.

Well, lets face it-it’s a lot harder to argue that something shouldn’t have ever occurred-but now that it has we need to slowly and systematically fix it. Much easier to argue we need this now and ignore that the reason we need it, is based on the problems having it has caused.

I wonder when or IF Obama will ever admit that these green technologies are just not ready for prime time? He certainly has wasted enough of our money on them for them to not work any better than they do. And the more cash he pumps into them, the more they fail.

Looks like the shine is beginning to come off the Obama Presidency. Even his normally supportive MSM is beginning to be critical of his Administration. Not to mention celebrities and fellow Democrats. I am beginning to see articles like this more and more, and this is only April.

Ok Buck, you are not getting away with this that easily.
1) There is a presumption of constitutionality on laws passed by Congress. However, unless I missed it in my research, the gun purchase mandate was never vetted by the Supreme Court and found Constitutional in a ruling. Thus, its so-called precedence as a constitutional mandate is quite weak, since it is only the existence of the presumption and the lack of a legal suit at the SCOTUS level that made the law stand. This is one of the reasons I would support a Constitutional amendment that removes the presumption of constitutionality from laws passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS. Thus, I call in question the premise that the Gun purchase mandate was indeed constitutional. I think the predominant reason for its lack of challenge was that a majority of persons already had such provisions, and those who did not considered it wise, especially so close to the Revolutionary War which was won largely by non-mimlitary, armed citizens.
2) You have hung almost your whole argument on the commerce clause, and yet the closest you have come to precedent for a purchase mandate has nothing to do with the commerce clause. There is no precedent for use of the commerce clase in this manner. That said, I am sick of precedent being such a strong legal argument anyway.
3) Precedent has been vastly overblown in our legal system such that it holds unconstitutional relevance. Precedence is useful in law for interpreting difficult laws or situtations that are not clearly or specifically enough defined to handle a given legal situation. Currently, it is being used as an actual adendam to law. This is why the “good lawyers” win cases based on knowledge of case law and legal histories, rather than on knowledge or the verbage or the intent of the law itself. Judges have long put too much weight on this, because the acceptance of precedence at this level grants vast power to judges. A judge’s decision can become a change to a law or to how that law is enforced and decided. This is a violation of the seperation of powers, voted in legislature has the power to make and change law, not judges. Judges are not even elected. It is an unconstitutional weight that has been added to precedence our legal system. Even if precedence could be argued to carry weight in regular cases, precedence has nothing to do with constitutionality.
4) VH’s reference to government being alowed to force people to purchase insurance I presume has to do with the legal requirement to have drivers insurance if you drive. This is a COMPLETELY unrelated thing, as it is not a requirement for all persons, and it is not a requirement to insure one’s self. It merely is a requirement to purchase insurance to cover liability of your actions. It would be, in health care terms, equivalent to requiring smokers to hold a liability policy to cover other persons they smoke around. Don’t want to carry it? Don’t smoke in public. Not saying I support that, but its the closest thing to it. Furthermore, all liability insurance requirements are at the State level, not the Federal level. The 10th amendment alone prevents the Feds from such mandates.

Yes, there is a presumption of constitutionality. And no, SCOTUS never rules on the gun purchase mandate. But that is neither here nor there. It still provides some evidence of congressional authority to pass a purchasing mandate. It still provides some level of precedence for the individual mandate at issue here. As I indicated, there are valid distinctions to be drawn between the gun purchase mandate and the individual mandate here. I’ve never suggested they are exactly the same. All I’ve said is that it provides some evidence that congress has the constitutional authority to provide for a purchasing mandate in its exercise of its enumerated constitutional powers.

Congress can pass anything they want, does not make it Constitutional (despite the presumption), and in reference to a SCOTUS case, it provides no relevant precedence at all. It might have been precedence for Congress to think they could pass it and get by with it, but it is not case law for the SCOTUS to reference in their decision, since previous laws of so-called related nature have not been vetted by the Court. I am not arguing about the differences in the gun purchase mandate and the health insurance mandate, those differences are well established. I am arguing that the presence of an uncontested law does nothing to support constitutionality of a contested one. Thus, I disagree that it is “neither here nor there”. It is, in fact, quite relevant. I am sure with very little research I could bring up a great many unconstitutional laws that simply have not been contested in our highest court. Their uncontested existence may mean they remain law, but it does not mean they are constitutional.

Ok Jon, gotcha — you are using precedence in a slightly different way than I am. You are using it in the sense of only actual case law; I am using it to include any prior congressional action as well.

Legally speaking though, I would disagree with you statement that “the presence of an uncontested law does nothing to support constitutionality of a contested one”. That is not quite correct. Prior congressional actions that went unchallenged (especially one passed by a number of the founders themselves) do provide some precedence to decisions on current congressional action, although given not as strong as a SCOTUS determination of constitutionality. Does that make more sense?

That makes sense. I agree, particuarly since founders were involved, that there is a little weight added, however, it is well established that congress, throughout the decades, has acted on a perceived need without regard for the Constitutional limitations. Still, I disagree that it really proves constitutionality, it simply implies that a previous and similar act went presumed constitutional. It has some weight, but far less than I think you were at first implying.

You, Mathius and I agree to put a batch of cookies in a jar. There are a couple of double stuffed Oreos, some oatmeal raisin and some plain old sugar cookies. WE agree that we can only remove double stuffed Oreos from the jar.

A year goes by and Mathius has need of the Oreos and promptly removes one of them from the jar.

A couple more years go by and Buck now decides he wants other cookies from the jar. So Buck constructs an argument that Mathius, by his actions has established a precedent that “removing cookies from the jar” is OK, and therefore he can have which ever cookies he likes.

Your continued argument that requiring citizens to “provide” or “possess” a gun as part of their militia service and as authorized under a specific authority to “arm” said militia is somehow a precedent for the GENERAL rule applicable to all authorities and powers is a logical fallacy. You can not separate the act from the specific power in order to rationalize some more GENERAL concept.

I wonder, do you realize that the more of these types of arguments you make on such Constitutional issues the more you make Black Flag’s case that NO Govt can be defined that will NOT TREAD UPON THE LIBERTY OF THE PEOPLE.

Thats a pretty irrational (and inapplicable) argument/analogy to make. In the cookie case we expressly agree that only Oreos can be removed. In the gun purchase mandate case, there was agreement that Congress can arm the citizenry; there is absolutely no agreement that Congress can make you purchase a gun in order to arm you. No matter how you slice it, there must necessarily be another step to arrive at the conclusion that Congress is somehow authorized to force you to purchase a gun. And, to me, that same argument can likewise be applied to an insurance mandate, despite the valid distinctions between the two.

My example is not irrational at all. It cuts to the heart of your argument. That the execution of a “separate and specific” authority somehow creates a precedent for an UNRELATED “separate and general” authority.

Hence the Oreo vs Any Other cookie.

There is NO OTHER STEP as you call it. Congress had the authority “to arm” the “militia”. Since the method was not specified or restricted it decided to have the “militia” arm itself by establishing a “requirement” that it in fact be armed.

“To Arm” is a very specific and limited power. As opposed “To Regulate Interstate commerce”. Furthermore, “to arm” has no ambiguity.

I would also like to add that “requiring” someone to purchase a commodity, like a gun and powder horn, is entirely different that forcing them to “enter into a contract” which obligates them to future actions.

So in keeping with the notion of equal concepts, the Militia Act is more closely related to Congress requiring we all buy Chevy Volt’s than “health insurance”.